VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00361
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00361
Petitioner: Luis Arroyo-Ramirez
Filed: 2015-04-09
Decided: 2015-07-13
Vaccine: meningococcal
Vaccination date: 2010-07-30
Condition: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Carmen Ramirez filed a petition on April 9, 2015, on behalf of her son, Luis Arroyo-Ramirez, alleging that he suffered from postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) as a result of a meningococcal vaccine administered on July 30, 2010. This was a subsequent filing after a prior petition involving an H1N1 vaccine was dismissed. The respondent moved to dismiss the current petition, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The medical records indicated that Luis's symptoms had been ongoing for at least three years prior to a December 2013 evaluation, suggesting the cause of action accrued in August 2010. The petition was filed on April 9, 2015, well after the August 2013 deadline. The court considered the possibility of equitable tolling due to the difficulty in diagnosing the condition but found no basis for it, as there was no indication of active pursuit of remedies or misconduct by the respondent. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that the statute of limitations begins at the first symptom or manifestation of onset, regardless of when the petitioner discovers a causal link. Therefore, the petition was dismissed because it was not timely filed. Special Master Christian J. Moran issued the decision. Petitioner counsel was Carmen Ramirez, pro se. Respondent counsel was Ryan D. Pyles.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Carmen Ramirez filed a petition on behalf of her minor son, Luis Arroyo-Ramirez, alleging POTS resulting from a meningococcal vaccine administered on July 30, 2010. The petition was filed on April 9, 2015. The respondent moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. Medical records indicated symptoms had been ongoing for at least three years prior to a December 2013 evaluation, suggesting the cause of action accrued in August 2010, making the April 9, 2015 filing untimely as the deadline was in August 2013. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to difficulty in diagnosing POTS and that she could not file until a diagnosis was made. Special Master Christian J. Moran considered equitable tolling but found no basis, as there was no indication of active pursuit of remedies or misconduct by the respondent. The Special Master cited precedent, including Cloer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, emphasizing that the statute of limitations begins at the first symptom or manifestation of onset, regardless of the petitioner's awareness of a causal link. The petition was dismissed because it was not timely filed. Petitioner was represented pro se by Carmen Ramirez, and respondent was represented by Ryan D. Pyles.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00361-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-08-11
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/13/2015) regarding 11 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (tpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00361-UNJ Document 12 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 4
L
Jn ttj£ Intteh Btntm Gumn ttf3^htvnl (Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS ril „
FILED
JUL 13 2015
CARMEN RAMIREZ,
No. 15-36IV U.S. COURTOF
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J.Moran
*
v. * Filed: July 13,2015
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Meningococcal vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * statute oflimitations.
Respondent. *
**!J*J* *Jlp* *J1^* *^l* *^1* *^1^# ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ *^^^ *^^^ ^^p ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^k^ ^^k^ *^p '^Tk*
Carmen Ramirez, pro se, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, for petitioner;
Ryan D. Pyles, United States Dep't ofJustice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Carmen Ramirez filed a petition on behalfofher son, Luis Arroyo-Ramirez,
("Luis") under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l to
300aa-34, on April 9, 2015. Her petition allegedthat Luis suffered frompostural
orthostatictachycardia syndrome ("POTS"), resulting fromthe receipt ofthe
meningococcalvaccine administeredto him on July 30, 2010. The undersigned
dismisses the current petition because the statute oflimitations has run and
petitioner's claim is not subject to equitable tolling.
I. Procedural History
In another case, Ms. Ramirez filed a petition alleging that her son suffered
from POTS as a result ofreceiving an HlNl vaccine. Because this vaccine is not
1The E-Government Act of2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,
2002), requires thattheCourtpostthis decision onitswebsite. Pursuant toVaccine Rule 18(b),
theparties have 14days tofile amotion proposing redaction ofmedical information orother
informationdescribedin 42U.S.C. §300aa-12(d)(4). Anyredactionsorderedbythe special
master willappear inthe document posted onthe website.

Case 1:15-vv-00361-UNJ Document 12 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 4
listed on the Vaccine Table, and because the petition was not filed within the time
permitted bythestatute oflimitations, theundersigned dismissed Ms.Ramirez's
September 17,2014 petition. No. 14-866(Feb. 13,2015).
OnApril 9,2015, Ms. Ramirez filed thecurrent petition alleging thatLuis
suffers from POTS as a result ofthe meningococcal vaccine received on July 30,
2010,ratherthanthe HlNl vaccineas previously alleged. Shefiledthreepagesof
medical records with her petition. These records outline the date ofthe
vaccination, a syncopal episode which occurred inDecember 2013, anda 2014
second opinion regarding thePOTS diagnosis noting thatLuis "exhibited anumber
ofsymptoms over the last three years." Pet. at 4-6.
An initial status conference was held on May 11, 2015. During the status
conference, itwasnotedthat Ms.Ramirezhadpreviously fileda case. Respondent
indicated that she intended to file a motion to dismiss based on the statute of
limitations. After the status conference, respondent was ordered to file her motion
to dismiss byJune 10, 2015, andpetitioner aresponse byJuly 10, 2015. Order,
issued May 12,2015.
OnJune4, 2015,respondentfiledher motionto dismiss. In hermotionto
dismiss, respondent stated thatthestatute oflimitations barspetitioner's claim.
Resp't's Mot. toDismiss at 1. Luis received the vaccination onJuly 30, 2010. Id
The petition stated thatLuis suffered theonset ofPOTS "shortly after" receiving
the vaccination. Pet. at 1. Ifcorrect, the cause ofaction accrued in August 2010,
andtimefor filinga claimelapsedinthe latesummerof2013. 42 U.S.C. §300aa-
16(a)(2).
OnJune23,2015,petitioner's responseto the motionto dismisswas filed.
Petitioner noted that she understood she was late in filing her claim, but reiterated
that without the POTS diagnosis she could not raise a claim. Pet'r's Resp. at 1.
She continued that before the vaccine she observed that her son's health was good.
Id. Ms. Ramirez stated that Luis's POTS condition has taken a significant toll on
both Luis andherself, indicatingthat she has been diagnosedwith depression. Id.
II. Analysis
Under the Vaccine Act, the petition is requiredto be filed prior to the
expiration of36 months after the first symptom ormanifestation ofonset ofthe
alleged vaccine injury. 42 U.S.C. §300aa-16(a)(2). The statute oflimitations
begins torun onthe date ofoccurrence ofthe first symptom ofonset. Id.; Cloer v.

Case 1:15-vv-00361-UNJ Document 12 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 4
Sec'v ofHealth & Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).
According to petitioner's medical records, the doctor's evaluations on December
10, 2013 and June 3, 2014 noted that his symptoms have been ongoing for at least
three years. Pet. at 5, 6.
Petitioner explained that the delay in filing her petition resulted from the
difficulty in diagnosis. Id. at 1-2. Yet, the first symptom or manifestation ofonset
is not always the date ofdiagnosis. Carson v. Sec'y ofHealth & Human Servs.,
727 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013). IfLuis's condition began shortly after his
meningococcal vaccine on July 30 2010, the statute oflimitations required this
case to be filed no later than August, 2013. The petition should be dismissed
because it is not timely filed.
Ms. Ramirez did not directly claim equitable tolling. However, Ms. Ramirez
did note the difficulty in diagnosing her son's condition as well as the significant
impactLuis's condition can have on him in the longterm. Pet. at 2. An equitable
tolling claim will, therefore, be considered with respect to the facts outlined in the
petition. Ultimately, as equitabletolling is reserved for severe cases, oftenthose
with deception or misconduct,the tolling ofthe statute oflimitationswould be
inappropriate in this case.
The equitabletolling of a statuteoflimitationshas been allowed"where the
claimanthas actively pursued hisjudicial remedies by filing a defectivepleading
duringthe statutoryperiodor wherethe complainanthas beeninducedortricked
by his adversary's misconductintoallowingthe filingdeadline to pass." Irwinv.
Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 498U.S. 89,96(1990). Thereisno indication thatMs.
Ramirezmadeanyattemptat filinga claimpursuantto the Vaccineactduringthe
relevant statute oflimitations. Additionally, there has been no claim ofany
misconduct that prohibited Ms. Ramirez from filing a timely claim. In Cloer v.
Sec'y ofHealth & Human Servs., the Federal Circuit held that equitable tolling
maynot be usedto circumventthe statuteoflimitations inorder simplyto prevent
the depravation ofa claim,evenwhenthe depravation maybe unfair. 654F.3d
1322, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Petitioneracknowledges that shewaslateinfiling her claim, butargues that
becauseLuis hadnotyet been diagnosedshewas unableto filea timelyclaim
whenthe symptoms began shortlyafterJuly 30, 2010. Pet. at 2; Pet'r's Resp.at 1.
The facts andarguments inCloerareverysimilarto petitioner's case. The
petitioner inCloer argued thatshe was unable tofile atimely claim because she
was not be aware ofa link between her vaccination and injury, therefore she should

Case 1:15-vv-00361-UNJ Document 12 Filed 08/11/15 Page 4 of 4
not be subject to the 36 month statute oflimitations until she became aware ofthe
link. Cloer, 654 F.3d at 1344. The Federal Circuit ruled that the statute of
limitations for the Vaccine Act was consciously designed by Congress to begin at
"the occurrence ofthe first symptom or manifestation ofonset," rather than when
thepetitioner discovers theycanfile a claim. §300aa-16(a)(2). Thisruling
established that the statute oflimitations strictly begins to run at the onset ofthe
injury, no matter whether thepetitioner is fully aware of a causal linkbetween a
vaccination andinjury. Cloer, 654F.3dat 1345. As none ofthe relevantsituations
forequitable tollingarepresent, petitioner'sclaimis barredbythe statute of
limitations.
Thus, this case is dismissed due to the statute oflimitations. The Clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.
The Clerk's Office is instructed to mail a courtesy copy ofthis order to Ms.
Ramirez return receipt requested.
Anyquestions maybe directedto mylawclerk,MaryHolmes, at (202)357-
6360.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Christian /. Moran
Special Master