VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00705
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00705
Petitioner: Shanie Roman
Filed: 2024-01-05
Decided: 2024-02-07
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2009-09-17
Condition: endometriosis, fibromyalgia, and ovarian remnant syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Shanie Roman filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 5, 2024, on behalf of herself. She alleged injuries from a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine received on September 17, 2009. Roman, who was 26 years old at the time of vaccination, stated that approximately one month after her second dose of the HPV vaccine, she began experiencing atypical pain during her period. This pain became more severe and constant, leading to a diagnosis of endometriosis, for which she underwent a partial hysterectomy in 2013 and a second hysterectomy in 2016. She was later diagnosed with fibromyalgia and ovarian remnant syndrome. Roman argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because she was not provided a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at the time of vaccination and only learned of the Vaccine Program and potential adverse effects in April 2023, after which she immediately contacted an attorney. The Special Master noted that the petition was filed over thirteen years after the last HPV dose and symptom onset, well outside the 36-month statute of limitations. The court found that Roman failed to establish both elements required for equitable tolling: diligent pursuit of her rights and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing. The Special Master rejected Roman's argument that the failure to provide a VIS or information about the Vaccine Program constituted an extraordinary circumstance, citing precedent that the statute of limitations is triggered by symptom onset, not by a claimant's awareness of a potential cause of action or the Vaccine Program. Allegations of fraudulent conduct by the vaccine manufacturer were also deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. The Special Master also referenced prior rulings in similar cases regarding the HPV vaccine and autonomic issues. Consequently, the case was dismissed as untimely filed. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on February 7, 2024. Petitioner's counsel was Andrew D. Downing, and Respondent's counsel was Julia M. Collison.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Shanie Roman, age 26, received the second dose of the HPV vaccine on September 17, 2009. Approximately one month later, she began experiencing atypical menstrual pain, which became severe and constant, leading to diagnoses of endometriosis, fibromyalgia, and ovarian remnant syndrome, and two hysterectomies. The petition was filed on January 5, 2024, over thirteen years after symptom onset and the last vaccination. Petitioner argued for equitable tolling, asserting she did not receive a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at vaccination and only learned of the Vaccine Program and potential adverse effects in April 2023. The Special Master found the petition untimely, rejecting equitable tolling because Petitioner failed to demonstrate diligent pursuit and extraordinary circumstances. The Special Master held that the statute of limitations accrues upon symptom onset, not awareness of a cause of action or the Vaccine Program, and that failure to provide a VIS or information about the program does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative and unsupported. The case was dismissed as untimely filed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on February 7, 2024. Petitioner was represented by Andrew D. Downing, and Respondent by Julia M. Collison.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00705-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-02-07
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/05/2024) regarding 19 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00705-UNJ Document 21 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-705V
UNPUBLISHED
SHANIE ROMAN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: January 5, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Andrew D. Downing, Downing, Allison & Jorgenson, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Julia M. Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On May 12, 2023, Shanie Roman filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 342 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered various injuries due to a human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine she received on September 17, 2009. ECF No. 1 at 2.
Because the petition was untimely filed, and Petitioner has failed to establish a
basis for equitable tolling, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Factual Background
On September 17, 2009, Petitioner received the second dose of the HPV
vaccine.3 Exhibit 3 at 1 (vaccination history). A “month or so” after that vaccination,
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “Sec.” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
3 Petitioner received the first dose of the HPV vaccine in 2008 but is not alleging an adverse reaction to
that dose. Petitioner attests that “[p]rior to the second [HPV] vaccination [on September 17, 2009], I was
healthy and happy.” Exhibit 1 ¶ 3.

Case 1:23-vv-00705-UNJ Document 21 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 5
Petitioner stated she experienced atypical pain during her period. ECF No. 1 ¶ 7.
Petitioner’s pain became more severe and constant. Id. ¶¶ 7, 8. Petitioner was
diagnosed with endometriosis, attempted to treat the condition, but needed a partial
hysterectomy in 2013. Id. ¶¶ 9-11. In 2016, Petitioner required a second hysterectomy.
Id. ¶ 12. Petitioner was later diagnosed with fibromyalgia and ovarian remnant
syndrome. Id. ¶ 15.
Facially, Petitioner’s claim herein was filed over thirteen years after her last HPV
dose, which was administered in 2009, and over thirteen years from the time she began
manifesting symptoms. But Petitioner maintains her delay is excusable. Thus, in an
affidavit dated May 11, 2023, Petitioner has attested that, at the time this vaccination
occurred, no Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) was provided and no information was
relayed about the Vaccine Program. Exhibit 1 ¶ 2. Petitioner only learned that the HPV
vaccine might be capable of causing adverse effects in April 2023, but then immediately
contacted an attorney thereafter. Exhibit 12 ¶ 6.
Relevant Procedural History
Given that the timeliness of the claim was legitimately called into question merely
by the face of the actual Petition, while the case was still in the initial “pre-assignment
review” (a process utilized by the Office of Special Masters to assess whether a claim’s
primary evidentiary documentation has been filed), I ordered Petitioner to show cause
why the claim had not been filed outside the Act’s 36-month statute of limitations. Sec.
16(a)(2); ECF No. 12.
On November 28, 2023, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 14. Petitioner did not
dispute the onset of symptoms in 2009, or that her petition was filed in 2023 (and not
sooner than the fall of 2012, the statute of limitations deadline), but instead argued that
the limitations period should be equitably tolled. Petitioner asserted that she had diligently
pursued her rights once she realized the connection between her injuries and the HPV
vaccine and became aware of the Vaccine Program. Petitioner also made allegations not
relevant to a Vaccine Act claim, about the perfidious conduct of the vaccine manufacturer
in fraudulently concealing the HPV vaccine’s harmful character from the public. ECF No.
14 at 20. Relatedly, Petitioner argued that the failure of a healthcare professional to
provide her with a VIS at the time of vaccination can be attributed to the Department of
Health and Human Services’ failure to systematically ensure that VIS are provided and
explained to all vaccine recipients. Id. at 6.
On December 1, 2023, Respondent submitted a responsive brief of his own,
arguing for dismissal due to untimeliness. ECF No. 16. Respondent maintained that
Petitioner in fact had not diligently pursued her rights before filing a vaccine claim in 2023.
Respondent also disputed the veracity of contentions about the manufacturer’s conduct,
2

Case 1:23-vv-00705-UNJ Document 21 Filed 02/07/24 Page 3 of 5
and whether it could in any event constitute an extraordinary circumstance that would
serve as a basis for tolling of the statute.
On January 4, 2024, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s arguments. ECF No.
18. The reply generally reiterates Petitioner’s prior arguments.4
Legal Standards
The Vaccine Act's statute of limitations is thirty-six months. Sec. 16(a)(2). The
statute begins to run from the manifestation of the first objectively cognizable symptom,
whether or not that symptom is sufficient for diagnosis (or even recognized by a claimant
as significant). Id.; Carson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 727 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2013).
The Federal Circuit has held that the doctrine of equitable tolling can apply to
Vaccine Act’s statute of limitations. See Cloer v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 654 F.3d
1322, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2011). However, in keeping with applicable U.S. Supreme Court
precedent, equitable tolling of a limitations period is to be permitted “sparingly.” Irwin v.
Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, (1990). The appropriateness of equitable tolling
is ultimately to be determined on a case-by-case basis, without rigid application of any
relevant overarching guidelines. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649–50 (2010); accord
Arctic Slope Native Ass'n v. Sebelius, 699 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Petitioners must prove two elements to establish equitable tolling: (1) that
petitioner diligently pursued her rights, and (2) an extraordinary circumstance prevented
her from timely filing the claim. K.G. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 951 F.3d 1374,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States, 577 U.S. 250, 255
(2016)). When first articulating this limited exception to equitable tolling, the Federal
Circuit primarily enumerated fraud and duress—but not, for example, lack of awareness
on a petitioner's part that she might have an actionable claim. Cloer, 654 F.3d at 1344–
45 (noting that tolling of the Vaccine Act's statute of limitations period is not triggered “due
to unawareness of a causal link between an injury and administration of a vaccine”).
Analysis
The untimeliness of this filing is acknowledged by Petitioner, so the only question
to be resolved is whether equitable tolling should save the claim. But Petitioner has failed
to establish both elements of equitable tolling – diligent pursuit and extraordinary
circumstances.
4 Petitioner incorrectly argues that she was a minor at the time of the second HPV vaccination. ECF No.
18 at 2-5. On September 17, 2009, Petitioner was twenty-six years old. Exhibit 12 ¶ 1.
3

Case 1:23-vv-00705-UNJ Document 21 Filed 02/07/24 Page 4 of 5
A) Diligent pursuit
Petitioner was twenty-six years old when she received the September 17, 2009
HPV vaccination. Petitioner argues that she was impeded by the failure of the vaccine
administrator to provide her with a VIS or any other information about the Vaccine
Program. Petitioner only began to diligently pursue a vaccine claim in 2023 through an
attorney soon after she learned that the HPV vaccine had potential adverse effects.
These arguments are wholly unpersuasive. It is beyond question that claims
asserted in the Vaccine Program are not subject to a “discovery rule,” accruing only when
a claimant learns he or she might possess a cause of action. Rather, the statute of
limitations period is triggered by the onset of Petitioner’s symptoms – whether or not onset
was understood to be the start of the claimed injurious illness or condition. Cloer v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). And the failure
to be advised of the Vaccine Program or the Act does not support equitable tolling of the
statute of limitations period for an otherwise-untimely filed petition. Speights v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-2619V, 2013 WL 5944084, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 17, 2013). Thus, a petitioner cannot generally shield an untimely claim from dismissal
by asserting, even in good faith, that she literally was unaware of her Vaccine Act “rights.”
B) Extraordinary Circumstances
Petitioner’s arguments about the purported fraudulent conduct of the vaccine’s
manufacturer, in hiding proof of the vaccine’s dangers, deserve even less consideration.
ECF No. 14 at 20. As a threshold matter, these contentions are speculative and not
evidentiarily-supported. And regardless of their actual truth, the fact remains that the
Government has approved the HPV vaccine for administration to minors, rendering it
“covered” under the Act. The only issue to be resolved in a Program case is whether
(assuming, as here, the claim is not a Table claim) the claim meets the standards for
causation – and those standards have nothing to do with a manufacturer’s alleged
misconduct in preparation or promotion of the underlying vaccine.
These allegations also are not a basis for tolling under the circumstances.
Petitioner simply has not shown that contentions of corporate misconduct not specific to,
or directed at, her personally could rise to the level of the kind of “fraud” that might excuse
failing to file a Program claim in a timely manner. Nor has she persuasively established
that the vaccine administrator’s “failure to warn,” or provide a VIS in 2009, is an
extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation,5 it
5 Vaccine administration records typically state whether VIS are provided to patients and/or whether
patients have been counseled about the vaccine. Petitioner has not submitted a vaccine administration
record for the September 17, 2009 HPV vaccine. Petitioner only filed a vaccination history from PCC
4

Case 1:23-vv-00705-UNJ Document 21 Filed 02/07/24 Page 5 of 5
remains the case (as the Circuit recognized in Cloer) that vaccine claims accrue upon
onset – and that the failure to be advised of the Vaccine Program does not support
equitable tolling. Cloer, 654 F.3d at 1340; see also Speights, 2013 WL 5944084, at *13.
And arguments about governmental agency knowledge of a failure to warn reflect
overheated, almost-conspiratorial allegations that do not come close to excusing the
claim’s untimely nature.
Finally, Petitioner also asserts that the safety of the HPV vaccine is “heavily
disputed and should not be resolved on these papers alone.” ECF No. 18 at 7. But this
argument willfully ignores the extent to which I have personally ruled in numerous prior
cases that medical science does not preponderantly support the contention that the HPV
vaccine can cause various autonomic issues. See, e.g., Hughes v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 16-930V, 2021 WL 839092, at *31 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2021), mot.
for review denied, 154 Fed. Cl. 640 (2021); E.S. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
17-480V, 2020 WL 9076620, at *40, 43 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 13, 2020), mot. for
review denied, 154 Fed. Cl. 149 (2021); McKown v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
15-1451V, 2019 WL 4072113, at *44–45 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2019). Indeed –
present counsel litigated many of these claims himself. The Act does not require that the
same theory rejected so many times before must be relitigated by the Program ad
infinitum (especially in the absence of new compelling evidence). Rather, special masters
are expressly empowered to rely on their expertise, earned in adjudicating Program
cases, in subsequent similar matters. To suggest that they should ignore what they have
learned in that process reveals a complete miscomprehension of the Program’s
underlying goals and purposes.
Conclusion
Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish equitable tolling. This case is dismissed
for being untimely filed. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
Community Wellness Center (exhibit 3), and, based on the lack of information recorded about the HPV
vaccination, it does not appear that the vaccine was administered at this facility. Thus, Petitioner has not
submitted any contemporaneous medical records of the vaccination to determine whether VIS was provided
to her. Petitioner’s only evidence that no VIS or information about the Vaccine Program was provided is her
affidavit dated May 11, 2023, in which she attested about events that occurred over thirteen years ago.
Exhibit 1 ¶ 2.
6 If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, she must file a notice of election rejecting the judgment pursuant
to § 21(a) “not later than 90 days after the date of the court’s final judgment.”
5