# ORIG!N[At

IJrr"

# t\llt 

# @nftt! $ltattn 

# [,ourt of

# frbersl @luims No. 02-220V (Filed Under Seal: 

### July

### 25,2016) (Reissued: August 9, 2016)

Vaccine case; 

### untimely motion 

### for review of a special master's decisionl 

### application

### of42 U.S.C. $ 300aa-12(e); 

### lack of 

### iurisdiction Petitioners,

SECRETARY OF 

### HEALTH AND 

### HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

,i ,i:f :ft +:t ,f ,t :t*'f 't,t:t't,t:f * * * +* * +* * * +* * * * * * **

Jose 

### Valle andAndrea 

### Valle,

### pro se, 

### Miami, Florida. Ryan 

### D. Pyles,

### Trial Attorney, Torts Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### D.C. for respondent. 

### With him on the 

### brief were 

### Benjamin C. 

### Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

### Attorney General, 

### Civil Division, and Rupa Bhattacharyya, 

### Director, Catharine E. Reeves, 

### Acting Deputy Director, and 

### Gabrielle 

### M. Fielding, Assistant 

### Director, Torts Branch, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

### OPINION AND ORDERI
Petitioners Jose

### Valle andAndrea 

### Valle seek 

### review

### ofa special master's decision denying them compensation under the 

### National Childhood Vaccine 

### Injury Act 

### of 1986, Pub. 

### L. No. 99-660, 

### Title 

### III, $

### 311, 100 Stat. 3756 

### (codified as amended at42tJ.S.C. $$ 

### 300aa-l to 300aa-34) 

### ("Vaccine 

### Act"). The special master 

### filed his decision on

### April 13,2016, andthe ensuingjudgment was entered on 

### May 

### 31,2016. On June 1, 2016,the

### Valles 

### filed their motion for

### judicial review 

### ("Pet'rs' Mot."), ECF 

### No. 141. The govemment opposes this 

### motion, arguing that the 

### court lacks

### jurisdiction because the petitioners 

### filed the 

### motion beyond the 

### time specified


### 'ln accord

### with the Rules 

### ofthe Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims 

### ("RCFC"),

### App B ("Vaccine Rules"), 

### Rule l8(b), this opinion and order is being 

### initially filed under 

### seal. By rule, the parties have fourteen days 

### in which to propose 

### redactions. 

### If no redactions are proposed, the decision 

### will be issued in the

### form in which 

### it was

### filed under seal. *,1.**{,{.*t',1.,1.**'l *** *** * *{.*,t {<:1. * rr*** A+****


### JOSE 

### VALLE and

### ANDREA 

### VALLE. on 

### behalf of

### J.V.. a 

### minor. 

# FILED

AUG

## - 9 20t6 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS



## !'J,".Is,"#*"ltl'gJHf_fi 

# *l"lff "1398?

### in 42 

### U.S.C. $ 300aa-12(e)(1), 

### which allows a 

### party 30 days 

### to

### file a 

### motion for review after the

special master issues his or her 

### decision. ,See 

### Resp't's Resp. 

### to 

### Mot. for Review 

### ("Resp't's Opp'n"), ECF 

### No. 142. 

### BACKGROUND
This case has an extensive 

### history, which is recounted at length 

### in the special master's 

### decision. See Valle v. Secretary 

### of Health 

### & Human Serus., 

### No. 

### 02-220y,2016 

### WL 2604782, at 

### t2-*14 (Fed. 

### Cl. Spec. 

### Mstr. 

### Apr. 13,2016). The 

### Valles 

### filedthis case

### pro se on 

### March 20, 2002, 

### alleging that 

### their then-15-month-old son,

### J.V., had experienced apost-vaccination change 

### in behavior and averring that several 

### different vaccines were the cause. 

### 1d at*5; see

### also Pet., ECF 

### No. 

## I (March 

### 20,2002) (alleging their son stopped 

### talking, making sounds, or

### following directions after being 

### vaccinated). The casewas

### originally assigned 

### to aspecial master, but 

### it was subsequently consolidated 

### in the Omnibus 

### Autism Proceeding 

### ("OAP"), along 

### with 5,400 other actions, pending the results 

### ofseveral test cases. 

### SeeValle,2Ol6 

### WL 2604782, at 

### *5-*6. 

### At some 

### point nearthis 

### time, J.V. was diagnosed

### with an autism spectmm 

### disorder. 

### 1d The 

### OAP test cases concluded 

### in

### 2010. 

### Id. 

### at*3. In the test cases, the special masters and 

### reviewing courts rejected claims that various vaccines had caused 

### petitioners' autism spectrum disorders. 

### 1d (citing decisions 

### by the 

### Office 

### of Special Masters, Court 

### of Federal Claims, and Court 

### of Appeals 

### for the Federal 

### Circuit).
On 

### November 7

### ,2011, the

### Valles were 

### notified about the outcome 

### ofthese cases and asked

### to decide whether they wished 

### to proceed 

### with their 

### claims. see

### valle,2016 

## wL 2604792, at

### *6. On January

### 31,2013, the

### Valles 

### filed an amended 

### petition for review, ECF 

### No. 67, generally 

### alleging that 

### J.V. suflered 

### from encephalitis as a result 

### ofa diphtheria+etanus-acellular pertussisvaccine 

### ("DTaP") and that this was a 

### "table 

### injury." Am. pet. !T!T

### l6-17.2 The petitioners also allegcd 

### J.v.'s injuries could have been caused 

### by Haemophilus influenza type b 

### ("Hib") and 

### polio 

### ("IPV") vaccines. See 

### Per'rs' 

### Mot. ar 5. On 

### May 23, 2013, the petitioners 

### filed a status report 

### explaining that they were asserting atable 

### injury 

### claim. Pet'rs' Status Report 

### fl 6, 

### ECFNo.71. The assigned special master consequently issued a scheduling order setting deadlines 

### for expert 

### reports. see 

### order of May 30,2013, ECF 

### No. 

### 72. The special master cautioned the petitioners about the difference between a

### claim 

### oftable injury and a

### claim 

### ofnon-table injury; to 

### prove atable 

### injury, petitioners needed 

### to show that 

### 'I.V. received avaccine and suffered an 

### injury that matched a conesponding 

### vaccine-injury specification onthe 

### injury table. 

## 1d Ifpetitioners were unable

### to make this

2 For a 

### "table 

### injury," a

### petitioner must generally establish that the vaccine received is listed on the 

### Vaccine 

### Injury Table, thatthevaccine was received 

### in the 

### united states, thatthe 

### injury or 

### condition is "set 

### forth on theVaccine Inj 

### uryTable 

### in association

### with the 

### vaccine," and 

### that "the 

### first symptom or manifestation 

### ofthe 

### [injury or 

### condition].

. .occurred

### within the

### time period after vaccine 

### administration set

### forth in the Vaccine 

### Injury

### Table." 42 

### u.s.c. $ 300aa

### l1(c)(l)(B), (C). For an

### "offtable" vaccine 

### injury, a 

### petitioner must establish causation by preponderant 

### evidence. S'ee42 

### U.S.C. gg

### 300aa-11(c)(t)(B), 

### (CXiiXD, 300aa-13(a)(1); 

### Althen v. Secretary of 

### Health 

### & Human Servs., 418 

### F.3d 1274, 

### 12jB (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005); Whitney v. Secretary of

### llealth & Human Servs., 122 Fed. Cl. 

### 297,299 (2015\.showing, they 

### would have to prove cause-in-fact pursuant

### tothe standards of

### Althen,4l 8 F.3d at



### 1278. 

## Id. In response, the petitioners 

### filed affidavits 

### of several 

### doctors. See

### Valle,2016WL 2604782,

### aI*17.
Petitioners 

### filed proposed 

### findings of fact and 

### law on

### April 24,2015, 

### ECFNo. I 17, and the Secretary responded on 

### May I I ,2015, ECF 

### No. I

### 20.r The assigned special mastcr subsequently issued athorough 33-page 

### opinion denying the

### Valles' 

### petilion. Valle,2016 

### WL 2604782, 

### at

### *26. The special master found that there was 

### insufficient evidence 

### of atable encephalopathy related

### to DTaP, 

### id. at +19, concluding that the 

### limited medical evidence was unpersuasive and deciding not 

### to credit certain statements 

### of fact made by the

### Valles, id. aI

### *20- 

### 21. The special master next addressed 

### petitioners' earlier pleadings 

### which had alleged 

### "anaphylactic 

### shock." 1d at

### *23. On that 

### point, he found the evidence 

### insufficient to establish a table 

### anaphylaxis. 

# Id Finaily, the special master 

### leniently construed the

### Valles'filings as 

### alleging that 

### J.V.'s 

### injury was caused-in-fact 

### by his vaccinations pursuanttothe standards

### of Althen,4l8 F.3d 

### at 1278. Id. at

### *25-26. Apptying that standard, the special master determined that the

### Valles had not proved that any vaccine had in 

### fact caused

### J.V.'s 

### conditions. 1d 

### JURISDICTION
Before considering the 

### merits of a 

### petitioner's motion, the court must determine that 

### it has j

### urisdiction. Jurisdiction isthe 

### "power to declare the 

### law," and when the court does not have 

### jurisdiction, its 

### "only function" is

### to "announc[e] thefact and 

### dismiss[] the 

### cause." Ex 

### parte McCardle, T4 

### U.S.506,514 (1868). Because 

### jurisdiction is aprerequisite to any court action, 

### all courts have 

### "an independent 

### obligation" to adhere to

### jurisdictional prescriptions. Arbaugh v.

## y & H Corp.,546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) 

### (citing Rzhrgas 

### AG v. 

### Marathon 

### Oil Co.,526 U.S. 574, 583 (

### 1999)). Jurisdictional terms, 

### limitations, and constraints cannot be relaxed. waived. 

### or forfeited, even when 

### application 

### ofthose provisions 

### would cause undue hardship 

### to one 

### of the 

### parties. See 

### Mojicav. Seuetary of 

### Health 

### & Human Servs.,287 Fed.

### Appx. 103, 

### 104(Fed. Cir. 2008) 

### ("This result is draconian 

### but compelled 

### by 

### law."). Owing adherence to

### this rule 

### of law, 

### this court must determine whether the ,,30-day,' 

### limitation 

### of42 tJ.S.C. $ 300aa-12(e) on

### filing a 

### motion for review of a special master's decision is

### jurisdictional. The 

### pertinenl statutory subsection provides: 

# (l) Upon issuance 

### ofthe special master's decision, the 

### parties shall have 30 days to

### file with the 

### clerk of the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### a motion to have the 

### court review the decision.

. . . (2) Upon the

### Jiling of a motion under paragraph 

### (l )

### with respect 

### to a

### petition, the United States 

### Court of 

### Federal Claims 

### shall have

### iurisdiction to

3During the lengthy progression 

### ofthis case, petitioners were represented at 

### different times 

### by

### five separate 

### counsel. The last 

### ofthese counselterminated his representation on

### August 26,2015, after 

### filings regarding the merits had been submitted tothe assigned special master 

### for decision. See Order 

### ofAug.26,2015, ECF 

### No. 130.(3) undertake a 

### review

### ofthe record

### ofthe proceedings and may thereafter 

### [uphold or set asidethe special master's 

### decision]

. . . . 

### In the absence of a 

### motion under paragraph ( 1) respecting the special master's decision 

### or 

### if the 

### United States 

### Court of Federal 

### Claims [upholds the

### decisionl, the 

### clerk 

### of the 

### United States 

### Court of Federal Claims 

### sftail immediately enter

### judgment in accordance 

### with the special master's decision.
42 

### U.S.C. $ 300aa-12(e) (emphasis added). 

### In 1993, the 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals for the Federal

### Circuit held that

### this 30-day 

### limitation on

### filing motions 

### ior review is

### jurisdictional. ll/iddoss v. Secretary of 

### Health 

### & Human 

### Servs.,989 F.2d 1170, 1177 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1993). 

### In lltiddoss, the Federal 

### Circuit determined that the statute's 

### plain language states 

### "in the strongest possible terms that

### filing a 

### motion to 

### review the special master's decision 

### within the 30-day period is a prerequisite to the 

### [court's] 

### jurisdiction." Id. at 1176. That reading is reinforced by the 

### legislative history, the 

### Circuit explained, becausethe House conference report accompanying the 

### legislation states that 

## "if such a

### motion 1br 

### review is

### filedwithin the applicable 

### time 

### limits, the 

### [c]ow is then 

### to decide [the 

### case]." 

## Id (quoting H.R. Rep. 

### No. 

### l0l-386, at 516

### (1989). Following Widdoss, courts have dismissed any late 

### petitions on

### jurisdictional grounds. See Mahaffey v, Secretary of 

### Health 

### & Human Servs., 368 

### F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2004) 

### (affirming dismissal 

### of a 

### motion 

### for rcview for lack

### ofjurisdiction, when the 

### motion was

### filed two days late); Decker v. Secretary

## of Health 

### & Human 

### Servs.,5l Fed. 

### Cl. 288,289 (2001) (dismissing 

### motion for review 

### for lack

### of jurisdiction, when the 

### motion was

### filed one day 

### late). Given the 

### binding authority

### of Widdoss, 

### this court 

### would lack

### jurisdiction to consider the 

### petitioner's motion for review, which was

### filed on June 1,2016, more than 30 days after the special master's decision 

## ofApril 13,

### 2016. See Hemey v. Secretary of 

### Healrh 

### & Human Servs., 88 

### F.3d 1001, 1002 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1996) 

### (holding thatthe special master's 

### decision's date 

### of "issuance" is the datethe decision is

### filed with the 

### clerk's 

### office). Nevertheless, three recent developments "have cast 

### into doubt the

### jurisdictional nature 

### of the deadline

### to

### file a 

### motion 

### lor 

### review." Price v. 

### Seuetary of 

### Health 

### & Human Servs., 565 Fed. 

### Appx. 891, 894

### & n.1 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014) 

### (affirming dismissal 

### of a 

### motion for review 

### for lack

## of jurisdiction, but 

### commenting that lYiddoss and 

### similar precedents had been "cast 

### into doubt"); see

### also G.L.G. ex 

### rel. Graves v. Secretary of 

### Health 

### & Human Servs., 577 Fed.

### Appx. 976,981 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2014) (same). 

### First, in a recent 

### line ofdecisions, the Supreme Court has instructed that 

### "most time bars are 

### nonjurisdicti 

### onal." United States v. 

### Kwai 

### Fun lYong,

## _U.5.

## _,

# _, 135 S. 

### Ct. 1625,1632 (2015); seealso Sebelius v.

### Auburn Reg'l Med. 

### Cnft., 568 U.S.

## _,

# _, 133 S.

### Ct. 817 (2013); Henderson ex 

### rel. Henderson v. 

### Shinseki,562 U.S. 428,435 (2011); Reed Elsevier, 

### Inc. v. 

### Muchnick,559 U.S. 154, 168 (201O); John R. Sand 

### & Gravel Co.

### v. United 

### States,552 U.S. 130, 133-34 (2008); 

### Arbaugh,546 U.S. at 516 

### (same). The 

### implication ofthis instruction is that

### filing deadlines 

### might be

### equitablytolled by the

### courts. .See 

### Kwai 

### Fun LI/ong,

## _U.S. at

# _, 135 S. Ct. 

### at 1638 

### (citing 

### lrwin v. Department 

### of Veterans

### Affair.r, 498 

### U.S. 89, 95 (1990) 

### (holding that

### "the same rebuttable presumption 

### ofequitable 

### tolling applicable 

### to suits against 

### private

defendants should also apply 

### to suits against the 

### United States. Congress, 

### of course, may 

### provide otherwise 

### if it wishes

### to do so.")). Second, the Supreme Court has refined the 

### principles to be employed 

### for determining whether a statute is

### jurisdictional. When 

### making such a decision, 

### lower courts must 

### "inquire whether Congress has 

### 'clearly stated' that the 

### rule is

### jurisdictional." Auburn Reg 7, 133 S. Ct. at 

### 824. "Absent such a clear statement

. . .courts should treat the 

### restriction as

### nonjurisdictional." 

### Kwai Fun Wong,135 S.

### Ct. at 1632 (q:uoting

### Auburn Reg'1,133 S.

### Ct. at 824 

### (intum quoting 

### Arbaugh,546 U.S. at 516)) 

### (internal quotation marks 

### omitted). This does 

### not amount 

### to a requirement that Congress use 

### "magic words," but 

### it does mean that 

### "traditional tools 

### of statutory construction must 

### plainly show that Congress imbued a procedural bar

### with jurisdictional consequences." 

### Id. (quotingAuburn 

### Reg'|,133 S.Ct. at

### 824). "The statutory language, placement 

### ofthe provision 

### within the statutory scheme, 

### and'context, including [Supreme 

### Court] interpretations 

### of similar provisions in many years 

### past,' are 

### indicative 

### of whether a 

### provision is j

### urisdictional." 

### FordMotorCo.v. United Stare.r, Sl

## l F.3d l3'11,1377 (Fed. 

### Cir. 201

### 6) (citations omifted) (quotingAuburn Reg'1, 133 S.Ct. at 835). 

### Third, the court 

### ofappeals has applied the underpinnings 

### of this line 

### ofSupreme Court cases

### to the Vaccine 

### Act, holding that the 36-month statute 

### of limitations for 

### filing a

### petition 

### for compensation, see

### 42U.5.C. g 300aa-16(a)(2), is not

### jurisdictional and thus may be

### equitably 

### tolled. Cloer v. Secretary oJ 

### Health 

### & Human Servs., 654 F

### .3d 1322, 1340-44 (Fed. 

### Cir. 201 1) (en banc) 

### (overruling Brice v. Secretary of 

### Health 

### & Human Servs.,240 F

### .3d 1367 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2001)). 

### Although the 

### holding 

### in Cloer was directed to Paragraph 300

### n-16(a)(2) oftheVaccine 

### Act, dicta 

### in the

### opinion suggests that 

### Cloer's reasoning 

### might apply 

### broadlyto the

### Act. See 

### Cloer, 654 F.3d 

### at 1344 (surveying the 

### "detailed time 

### limits goveming processing 

### of cases" and 

### concluding that "these

### time 

### limits are designed 

### to benefit the 

### petitioner.").
These developments since the decision 

### in lYiddoss was rendered require reanalysis

### ofthe jurisdictional effect 

### of Paragraph 

### 300aa-12(e)(l), applying the 

### principles of Kwai 

### Fun lhong. Subsection 300aa-12(a) states 

### in 

### explicit terms thatthis court shall "have

### jurisdiction over proceedings" 

### "in accordance" 

### with the 

### Section. The statute adds 

### in Paragraph 300aa-12(e)(2) that 

### "upon the

### filing of a 

### motion under paragraph (

### 1)," the 

### "Court of Federal 

### Claims shall have 

### jurisdiction to undertake a 

### review." The

### jurisdictional references 

### in the statutory 

### text are 

### reinforced by the

### overall heading 

### of the Section, 

### which is 

### "Court

### jurisdiction." Although statutory headings are 

### not dispositive, the 

### "placement" 

### of Paragraph 300aa-12(e)(2) 

### in Section 

### 300aa-l2 

### "provide[s] some 

### indication 

### ofCongrcss' 

### inIenL" Henderson,562 U.S. at439-40 

### (holding a 

### provision was not

### jurisdictional, after 

### noting thatthe 

### provision was 

### not included 

### in another section 

### of the statutory scheme that was

### titled "Jurisdiction; 

### finality ofdecisions"). Additionally, the statutory context is consistent 

### with ajurisdictional reading because, pursuantto Paragraph 300aa-12(e)(3), the 

### clerk of this court 

### "shall immediately enter 

### judgment', 

### if no 

### motion for review is

### filed.
The express use 

### ofthe term 'J

### urisdiction" in Section 300aa-12 also distinguishes the 30- day 

### limitation on

### filing motions for review from thc statute 

### of limitations at issue 

### in Cloer, 

### which was 

### not stated in

### jurisdictional Lerms. Compare 42 U.S.C. g 300aa-12(e)(1) (,,Upon the

### filing 

### ofa 

### motion under paragraph ( I

### )

. . . [the 

### court] shall have

### jurisdiction

. . . 

### ."), with 42 U.S.C.

$ 300aa- I6(a)(2) 

### ("tNlo petition may be

### filed

. . .afterthe 

### expiration 

### of 36 

### months."). See also 

### Henderson,562 U.S. at438 

### (holding that a statute 

### providing that "a person adversely affected 

### by [adecision 

### ofthe Board 

### ofVeterans' Appeals] shall 

### file anotice 

### ofappeal 

### with the Court 

### within 120 days after the date on

### which notice 

### of the decision is 

### mailed," did 

### "not speak in

### jurisdictional terms or refer 

### in any

### wayto the

### jurisdiction of the Veterans 

### Court." (quoting Zipes 

### v. Trans 

## I orld 

### Airlines Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 394

### (1982). And although the 

### time 

### limits in the Vaccine 

### Act may be

### for the 

### "benefit" 

### ofthe petitioner, 

### Cloer,654 F.3d 

### at 1344, that consideration cannot override the statute's plain

### jurisdictional language.
For these reasons,the court must dismiss 

### petitioners' motion for lack

### ofjurisdiction, even though the 

### court does so 

### reluctantly. Paragraph 300aa-12(e)(1) is 

### notably 

### rigid and out 

### ofstep with other statutes and rules 

### relating tothe

### time

### for seeking 

### review or 

### appeal. For example,

# if petitioners were

### to seek an extension 

### for an appeal 

### from this 

### court's ruling, the court 

### would have 

### juridical power 

### to grantthis 

### extension. See Fed. R.

### App. P.a(a)(5), 

### (6) (granting 

### trial courts discretion 

### to extend the 

### time for 

### filing an appeal, even after the prescribed 

### time has expired).4

aThe pertinent 

### rule of appellate procedure provides 

### in pertinent part: 

### (5) Motion for Extension 

### of Time. 

# (A) The 

### district court may extend the

### time to

### file anotice 

### of appeal 

### if: 

# (i) a party so moves no later than 30 days 

### after the 

### time prescribed by 

### this Rule 4(a) expires; and 

# (iD regardless 

### of whether its 

### motion is

### filed before 

### or during the 30 days afterthe

### time prescribed 

### bythis Rule 4(a) expires, that 

### party shows excusable neglect or good cause. 

# (B) A motion 

### filed before the 

### expiration of the 

### time prcscribed 

### in Rule 

### 4(a)(l) or (3) may be ex parte unless the court requires 

### otherwise. 

### If the 

### motion is

### filed after the 

### expiration of the prescribed 

### time, notice must be given tothe other parties 

### in accordance 

### with local rules. 

# (C) No extension underthis Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed 

### time 

### or 

### l4 days after the date when the order granting the 

### motion is entered, 

### whichever is la1er. 

### (6) Reopening the 

### Time to File an

### Appeal. The 

### district courr may reopen the 

### time to

### file an appeal 

### for aperiod 

### of 14 days after the date when its order

### to reopen is entered, but 

### only 

### if all the 

### following conditions are satisfi ed: 

# (A) the court 

### finds that the 

### moving party 

### did not receive notice under Federal Rule 

### of 

### Civil Procedure 

### 77(d)

### of

### By contrast, Rule 23 

### of theVaccine Rules governing 

### "Motionfs] for Review" implements the

statutory 

### limitations

### of42 U.S.C. $ 300aa-12(e) and provides no

### similar discretion, instead expressly 

### barring any extensions 

### oftime to seek 

### review of aspecial master's 

### decision. See Vaccine Rules 

### of the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims23(b) 

### ("No extensions 

### oftime

### will be 

### permitted under

### this 

### ruIe."). The

### wisdom ofthe statutory 

### time constraint on

### jurisdiction 

### for review, is, however, a matter 

### for Congress, notthe

### court. The court is obliged 

### to adhereto the statute as

### wntten.
Even 

### if equitable 

### tolling were available, see 

### Price,565 Fed. 

### Appx. at 894 (addressing equitable 

### tolling, in the alternative, after 

### concluding that the

### trial court otherwise had 

### appropriately dismissed the 

### late-filed motion for review 

### for lack

### ofjurisdiction), the circumstances 

### of this case 

### would not support an exercise

### ofthe court's discretion to 

### allow the late 

### submission. Equitable 

### tolling is generally appropriate 

### in instances where fraud, duress, 

### or extraordinary circumstances have stood 

### in the 

### way of a 

### litigant who has 

### diligently pursued his or her 

### rights. Cloer, 654 F.3d 

### at 1344-45


## . And, equitable 

### tolling sets a higher bar than "excusable 

### neglect" or "good cause,"

### which arethe standards applicable to extensions 

### for 

### filing appeals under Fed. R. 

### App. 

### a(a)(5)(A)(ii). See Nelson v. 

### Nicholson,489 F.3d 1380, 1383-84 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2007) 

### (citing Pioneer 

### Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. 

### Ltd. 

### P'ship,507 U.S. 380, 382 

### (1993)). Under the 

### doctrine ofexcusable neglect, 

### which is available 

### only when expressly authorized 

### by statute or 

### rule, 

### ld, neglect is defined assimple, faultless omissions or carelessness, see Cygnus 

### Corp.v. United Stales, 65 Fed. 

### Cl.646,649 (2005) (citing Pioneer,5O7 U.S. at 

### 388)). The doctrine 

### permits a court 

### to excuse neglect upon

### weighing "the danger 

### ofprejudice to 

### the [non-movant], the length 

### ofthe delay and its 

### potential impact 

### onjudicial proceedings, the reason 

### for the delay, 

### including whether 

### it was

### within the reasonable 

### control of the movant, and whether the movant acted 

### in good

### faith." Id. (q:uoling 

### Pioneer,507 U.S. at

### 395). To 

### warrant equitable 

### tolling, however, the movant must show sometJring 

### more. Nelson,489 F.3d 

### at 1384- 85.
On 

### July20,2016, the 

### Valles 

### filed a 

### replytothe 

### govemment's response, asserting that they received the special master's decision on 

### May 5,2016, not

### April 13,2016. Pet'rs' Reply at 

## l, ECFNo. 143. The 

### Valles aver that they were 

### not "informed about the

### April 13,2016 decision," andthat

### their time 

### for seeking 

### review should 

### runfrom May 5, 

### not

### April 13. 

### 1d This averment, however, is contradicted 

### by the 

### court's records. The 

### clerk's office has on

### file a Federal Express receipt showing that a copy 

### of the special master's decision was delivered to the 

### petitioners on

### April 14,20f 6, at9:49 a.m., i.e., on the 

### moming afterthe decision was issued.



### (c) Fed. R. 

### App. the entry 

### of the

### judgment or order sought

### to be appealed



### within 

## 2l days after entry; the 

### motion is

### filed

### within 180 days after the

### judgment or order is entered or

### within 14 days after the 

### moving party receives notice under Federal Rule 

### of 

### Civil Procedure 77(d) 

### ofthe entry, 

### whichever is

### earlier; and the 

### court finds that no party 

### would be prejudiced. P.

### a(a)(s), (6). 

### (B)These circumstances do 

### not amount 

### to excusable neglect, let alone the more 

### rigorous showing

required 

### for equitable 

### tolling. 

### CONCLUSION
The 

### motion for review is 

### DISMISSED for lack

### ofjurisdiction.
No costs. 

### It is so 

### ORDERED.

Charles