Laurence Chitlik v. HHS - Influenza, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) (2025)

On December 7, 2022, Laurence Chitlik, a 71-year-old man, filed a pro se petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccine he received on December 5 or 6, 2019, caused him to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). He alleged that the pain began immediately after vaccination, with severely limited range of motion within 48 hours, and he began physical therapy in January 2020.

The respondent is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The petitioner later obtained counsel, who filed an amended petition on September 4, 2024, alleging alternatively a Table SIRVA claim, a causation-in-fact SIRVA claim, and a significant aggravation claim.

On the same day, the petitioner's counsel filed a motion for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The petitioner argued that his petition was filed one day late, on December 7, 2022, as the 36-month statute of limitations expired on December 6, 2022.

He asserted that he mailed his petition via certified First-Class USPS mail on November 26, 2022, eight days before the deadline, and that the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and USPS operational issues. The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the petitioner did not exercise reasonable diligence by choosing First-Class mail over a guaranteed delivery service and that USPS delays are not extraordinary circumstances.

Special Master Herbrina D.S. Young denied the motion for equitable tolling on December 19, 2024, finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated reasonable diligence in filing his petition.

The Special Master noted that the petitioner could have used overnight delivery or Priority Mail Express for a guaranteed delivery. She also found that delays in regular mail are not extraordinary circumstances and that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic caused an extraordinary circumstance.

Consequently, the Special Master dismissed the petition as untimely. The petitioner sought review of this decision.

On March 27, 2025, Judge Richard A. Hertling of the U.S.

Court of Federal Claims issued a memorandum opinion and order affirming the Special Master's decision. Judge Hertling reviewed the case de novo and agreed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence.

He found that the petitioner's choice of First-Class mail, especially during the busy holiday season, and his failure to monitor tracking information and respond to apparent delays, demonstrated a lack of reasonable diligence. Because the petitioner failed to meet the diligence prong, the court did not need to address the extraordinary circumstances prong.

The motion for review was denied, and the petition was dismissed. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of the alleged injury or name any medical experts.