Sarah Hebern v. HHS - other (2002)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On June 14, 2001, Sarah Hebern's parents filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 on her behalf. The public order does not identify the specific vaccine(s) administered, Sarah's age at the time of vaccination, or the alleged injury.
The petitioners acknowledged that their claim was filed outside the Vaccine Act's 36-month statute of limitations, which requires claims to be brought within 36 months after the first symptom of the alleged vaccine-caused injury. They argued that special circumstances justified equitable tolling of the filing deadline.
The special master rejected this argument on September 10, 2001, relying on the Federal Circuit's decision in Brice v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., which held that equitable tolling does not apply to Vaccine Act petitions.
Consequently, the special master dismissed the compensation claim as barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioners did not seek review of this dismissal.
Following the dismissal, the petitioners moved for an award of attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). The special master denied this request on May 2, 2002, reasoning that because the court lacked jurisdiction over the untimely compensation petition, it also lacked jurisdiction to award fees and costs.
The special master relied on the Federal Circuit's decision in Martin v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.
Petitioners moved for review of the fee denial. On October 23, 2002, Judge Wiese affirmed the special master's decision.
Judge Wiese reasoned that, similar to the Martin case, the Vaccine Act's fee-shifting provision does not create an independent grant of jurisdiction when the underlying claim is outside the court's jurisdiction. Since Sarah Hebern's compensation petition was barred by the statute of limitations, the court had no jurisdiction over the petition and, therefore, no jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees.
The case was dismissed without an award of compensation or attorneys' fees.
Theory of causation
Petition filed June 14, 2001, on behalf of Sarah Hebern, acknowledging it was outside the Vaccine Act's 36-month statute of limitations. Petitioners sought equitable tolling based on special circumstances, but the special master dismissed the compensation petition on September 10, 2001, ruling that equitable tolling does not apply to Vaccine Act petitions, citing Brice v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs. Petitioners did not appeal the dismissal. Attorneys' fees were denied May 2, 2002, by the special master, and affirmed by Judge Wiese on October 23, 2002, based on Martin v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., which held that the court lacks jurisdiction to award fees if it lacks jurisdiction over the underlying claim. The public order does not identify the vaccine, the alleged injury, the clinical timeline, or any expert testimony. No Althen causation analysis was performed as the case was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. No compensation was awarded.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_01-vv-00361