W.J. v. HHS - MMR, chronic encephalopathy (2022)

On May 7, 2021, R.J. and A.J., parents and legal guardians of minor W.J., filed a petition for vaccine injury compensation on behalf of their child. They alleged that W.J. suffered from chronic encephalopathy and immunodeficiency issues, including immune-related blood disorders, eczema, and allergies, as a result of receiving the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine on February 24, 2005.

They further claimed the vaccine either directly caused these injuries or significantly aggravated pre-existing cerebral and immunological damage related to W.J.'s Xq28 chromosomal duplication. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the petition was filed beyond the 36-month statutory limitations period and that no basis for equitable tolling existed.

The Special Master, Nora Beth Dorsey, granted the motion to dismiss, finding the petition untimely. The Special Master noted that W.J. was diagnosed with a speech delay on March 7, 2006, and with autism and pervasive developmental delay on January 5, 2007.

These diagnoses, occurring well before the petition filing date, were considered the first symptoms or manifestations of the alleged injuries. The Special Master determined that even if the alleged injuries could be proven, the petition was time-barred.

The Special Master also rejected the petitioners' arguments for equitable tolling, stating that as W.J.'s legal representatives, his parents had the responsibility to file a timely claim and that W.J.'s alleged incapacity did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance to warrant tolling. The court also found no evidence of fraudulent concealment by the respondent that prevented timely filing.

The petitioners appealed this decision. On July 7, 2022, Judge Kathryn C.

Davis of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a memorandum opinion and order affirming the Special Master's decision.

The court found that the Special Master did not err in raising the statute of limitations issue sua sponte, nor did she misapply the legal standard in ruling on the equitable tolling arguments. The court agreed that the petition was filed outside the 36-month limitations period, which begins from the first symptom or manifestation of the injury.

The court also affirmed the rejection of equitable tolling, noting that the parents, as legal representatives, had the right and responsibility to file a timely claim on behalf of their minor child. The court concluded that the Special Master's decision was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and therefore denied the motion for review, upholding the dismissal.