fix(uscfc): implement new site

[grossir]

Solves #1221

• Delete uscfc_vaccine_u and uscfc_u and their example files. Published and unpublished opinions are in the same page for uscfc. On uscfc_vaccine, we only find Unpublished opinions

[flooie]

Adding new item:
    case_dates: "2023-12-06"
    case_names: "Harlow v. Secretary of Health and Human Services"
    download_urls: "https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020vv0550-76-0"
    precedential_statuses: "Unpublished"
    blocked_statuses: "False"
    date_filed_is_approximate: "False"
    docket_numbers: "20-550V"
    judges: "C. Moran"
    summaries: "PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/13/2023) regarding [75] DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (dksc) Service on parties made."
    case_name_shorts: "Harlow"

I think you need to parse out the vaccine stuff separately from the rest of the federal claims opinions.

This case for example is a published decision.

[flooie]

I think docket numbers should resember if possible the full docket number in the opinion

No. 22-0075V
No. 22-0667V

in this case adding leading zeroes

[flooie]

I dont think the summary text you identify fits the criteria of what I would classify as a summary (at least for the vaccine court).

summaries: "PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/03/2023) regarding [32] DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made."

I think its closer to a disposition, but not really even that it's more like a document description. which we dont collect in case law.

[flooie]

I think we should parse out the full name instead of using the judge field in the json

[grossir]

@flooie I addressed your comments, please check again

---

To get the proper status for vaccine opinions I had to implement extract_from_text, since the site marks them all as "unreported". I found some older ones marked as Unpublished that should be Published; so even when the site marked the status it was sometimes wrong

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4896639/trigueros-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services/?q=court_id%3Auscfc+%22published+decision%22&type=o&order_by=score+desc&stat_Unpublished=on

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4753749/eamick-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services/?q=court_id%3Auscfc+%22published+decision%22&type=o&order_by=score+desc&stat_Unpublished=on&page=6

---

About the summary, it has varying amount of information. Once the judges are removed, it reads better.

I also picked up the (originally filed... ) and put it into case["other_dates"], and it improves readibility of the "summary"

About it holding info for uscfc_vaccine, it tells in very few words what the document is about. I think it would be worth to keep. For example:

• PUBLIC DECISION regarding [46] Ruling on Entitlement,, DECISION of Special Master,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record
• PUBLIC DECISION regarding [20] DECISION Stipulation/Proffer
• PUBLIC DECISION regarding [42] Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law