VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00790
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00790
Petitioner: Patricia Young
Filed: 2024-01-22
Decided: 2024-02-20
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 
Condition: premature ovarian failure, polycystic ovary syndrome, and infertility, short term memory loss, abnormal pap smear
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Patricia Young filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 31, 2023, alleging she suffered premature ovarian failure, polycystic ovary syndrome, infertility, short-term memory loss, and an abnormal pap smear as a result of three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations received in 2011. At the time of vaccination, she was approximately seventeen years old. The petition was filed nearly twelve years after her last vaccination and the alleged onset of symptoms. Petitioner argued that her delay in filing was excusable due to her minor status at the time of vaccination and the alleged failure to provide her with a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS). She also made allegations regarding the vaccine manufacturer's conduct. The respondent argued for dismissal due to untimeliness. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the case. The Special Master noted that the Vaccine Act's statute of limitations is thirty-six months, beginning from the manifestation of the first objectively cognizable symptom. The court found that Petitioner failed to establish both elements required for equitable tolling: diligent pursuit of her rights and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing. The Special Master determined that Petitioner's arguments regarding her minor status and lack of awareness of the Vaccine Program were unpersuasive, as the statute of limitations is triggered by symptom onset, not by a claimant's awareness of their rights or the program. The court also found that for minors, the diligence of a parent or legal guardian is relevant, but Petitioner provided no evidence to assess her parent's or guardian's diligence or effectiveness. The Special Master also dismissed Petitioner's arguments about the vaccine manufacturer's alleged fraudulent conduct as speculative and not a basis for tolling. The public decision does not describe specific onset dates, symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Petitioner counsel was Andrew D. Downing. Respondent counsel was Julia M. Collison. The case was dismissed for untimeliness, and the Clerk of Court was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Patricia Young, approximately seventeen years old at the time of vaccination in 2011, received three HPV vaccinations and alleged subsequent onset of premature ovarian failure, polycystic ovary syndrome, infertility, short-term memory loss, and an abnormal pap smear. The petition was filed on May 31, 2023, nearly twelve years after the alleged symptom onset. Petitioner argued for equitable tolling based on her minor status and alleged failure to receive a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS), and also alleged manufacturer misconduct. Respondent argued for dismissal due to untimeliness. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the case, finding Petitioner failed to establish diligent pursuit and extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling. The Special Master held that the statute of limitations is triggered by symptom onset, not awareness of rights or the program, and that lack of a VIS does not support tolling. The diligence of a parent or guardian was relevant for a minor, but no evidence was provided to assess their diligence. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of causation or name any experts. The case was dismissed for untimeliness. Petitioner counsel: Andrew D. Downing. Respondent counsel: Julia M. Collison. Decision Date: February 20, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00790-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-02-20
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/22/2024) regarding 16 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00790-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-790V
UNPUBLISHED
PATRICIA YOUNG,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: January 22, 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 31, 2023, Patricia Young 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 from three
human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccinations she received in 2011 (no specific dates
provided). 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
Petitioner alleges she received three HPV vaccinations in 2011 from her
pediatrician but has not filed any vaccinations records or other medical records to
establish these vaccinations. Petitioner did not state whether she was alone at these
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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:23-vv-00790-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 7
pediatric appointments or was accompanied by a parent. “Several months” after the last
HPV vaccination in 2011, around the age of seventeen, Petitioner missed her period but
was “unaware that her period was supposed to come monthly.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 4. Around
six years later, at the age of twenty-three, Petitioner still did not have a period and became
concerned. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure, polycystic ovary
syndrome, and infertility. Id. Petitioner also experienced short term memory loss at some
point after the vaccinations and had an abnormal pap smear in 2017. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6.
Facially, Petitioner’s claim herein was filed nearly twelve years after her last HPV
dose, which was administered in 2011, and twelve years from the time she began
manifesting symptoms. But Petitioner maintains her delay is excusable. Thus, in an
affidavit dated May 31, 2023, Petitioner has attested that at the time these vaccinations
occurred, no Vaccine Information Statements (VIS) were provided, and no information
was relayed about the Vaccine Program. Exhibit 1 ¶ 2. Petitioner turned eighteen in 2012
and has not stated when she became aware that the HPV vaccine could have potential
adverse effect. If a parent had been present during the vaccine administration
appointments, Petitioner also did not submit an affidavit from that parent about whether
any counseling or information was provided about the HPV vaccine and the Vaccine
Program.
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,”3 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. 10.
On November 28, 2023, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 11. Petitioner did not
dispute the onset of symptoms in 2011, or that her petition was filed in 2023 (and not
sooner than 2014), but instead argued that the limitations period should be equitably
tolled. Petitioner asserted that she had diligently pursued her rights once she became
aware of her legal rights. 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. 11 at 16. 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 explained and provided to all
vaccine recipients. Id. at 8.
3 Pre-Assignment Review, or PAR, is a process utilized by the Office of Special Masters to assess
whether a claim’s primary evidentiary documentation has been filed. See notice at
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00790-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 7
On December 1, 2023, Respondent submitted a responsive brief of his own,
arguing for dismissal due to untimeliness. ECF No. 13. Respondent maintained that
Petitioner in fact had not diligently pursued her rights before filing a vaccine claim in 2023,
but did not address Petitioner’s argument that Petitioner’s status as a minor was relevant
to the diligence inquiry. Respondent also disputed the veracity of contentions about the
manufacturer’s conduct, and whether it could in any event constitute an extraordinary
circumstance that would serve as a basis for tolling of the statute.
On December 15, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s arguments. ECF
No. 15. That document reiterated Petitioner’s prior arguments.
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”). More
recently, in K.G, 951 F.3d at 1380–82 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Circuit more explicitly
endorsed the proposition that an individual’s demonstrated mental incapacity is a basis
for equitable tolling in the Program. For a mentally incapacitated individual, the Circuit
3

Case 1:23-vv-00790-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/20/24 Page 4 of 7
instructed that the details of the individual’s legal guardian would affect whether there was
reasonable diligence. K.G, 951 F.3d at 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
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.
A) Diligent pursuit
Petitioner argues that her diligent pursuit of her vaccine claim was impeded by her
minor status when the vaccinations were administered. Even though Petitioner turned
eighteen years old in 2012, she did not describe any diligent pursuit from then until the
filing of her vaccine claim in 2023 or state when she learned of the Vaccine Program.
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.”
Petitioner attempts to leverage her minor status at the time of vaccination into an
exception to the above. But the Vaccine Act does not provide for tolling of claims involving
minors simply due to their age, nor does it treat minors as “mentally incapacitated” for
purposes of the Act’s statute of limitations. The only savings clause in the Act is for
revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table, which allow an otherwise untimely claim for newly
added vaccines to be filed. Sec. 16(b). And there is no argument here that a Table claim
specifically involving the HPV vaccine was added that would cover Petitioner’s delayed
filing.4
4 In fact, the HPV vaccine was added to the Table in 2007 – four years before onset is alleged herein to
have occurred. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (Vaccine Injury Table); National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program:
Addition of Meningococcal and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table, 72
Fed. Reg. 19937 (Apr. 20, 2007). The Act’s lookback provisions have no relevance at all to the timeliness
of this claim.
4

Case 1:23-vv-00790-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/20/24 Page 5 of 7
As a result, Petitioner’s personal diligence to file a vaccine claim in 2023 is only
relevant after she turned eighteen in 2012. While Petitioner was a minor, since the Act
permits claims to be brought by a minor’s parent or legal guardian, it is that person’s
diligence that bears on this aspect of the tolling question. And parents are generally
presumed to be adequate surrogates for their children. United States v. Alvarez, 710 F.3d
565, 568 n.10 (5th Cir. 2013); Court of Federal Claims Rule 17(c)(1)(A) (guardian
permitted to sue on behalf of a minor); Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(C) (parents are presumed to
be able file in a representative capacity on behalf of their children without supporting
documentation).
At best, the Federal Circuit has noted that a guardian’s effectiveness in acting on
behalf of a legally incapacitated individual should be assessed on a case-by-case basis,
and there thus could be circumstances where the adequacy of a guardian’s performance
of their duties bears on tolling. K.G, 951 F.3d at 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2020). A parent or
guardian would be the person to consent to medical treatment, including vaccinations, for
her daughter, and the person to receive all medical information, including a VIS. Here,
Petitioner has not submitted the vaccination records, her overall pediatric records, or even
an affidavit to establish whether a parent or guardian was present during the vaccinations
or more generally present during Petitioner’s medical care as a minor. Petitioner has not
submitted any evidence that could be used to assess her parent or guardian’s
effectiveness. Thus, I cannot determine whether Petitioner’s parent or guardian was
deficient in her responsibilities to handle Petitioner’s legal affairs.
Regardless, even if Petitioner’s parent or guardian was presumed to be ineffective
at handling Petitioner’s legal affairs, Petitioner could at most hope to toll the statute of
limitations on this basis until she turned eighteen in 2012, pushing the statute of limitations
deadline to 2015. As stated above, Petitioner being unaware of the Vaccine Program or
the possibility of adverse effects from vaccines is no excuse for a lack of diligent pursuit
from 2012 until the filing of her vaccine claim in 2023.
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. 11 at 18. 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.
5

Case 1:23-vv-00790-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/20/24 Page 6 of 7
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 2011, is an
extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation,5 it
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. 15 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.
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 any of the three HPV vaccines administered in 2011. Petitioner has not submitted any
contemporaneous medical records of the vaccinations 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 31, 2023, in which she attested about events that occurred approximately twelve years
ago when she was a teenager. Exhibit 1 ¶ 2.
6

Case 1:23-vv-00790-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/20/24 Page 7 of 7
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
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.”
7