Morgan Kirby v. HHS - HPV, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (2024)

Morgan Kirby, represented by Tracy Turner of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 8, 2024. She alleged injuries from two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

The first dose was administered on June 30, 2017, when Kirby was fourteen years old, and the second dose was administered on July 6, 2018, when she was fifteen years old. Kirby reported experiencing lightheadedness, tunnel vision, and a racing heart three days after the second vaccination, on July 9, 2018.

She was subsequently diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). The petition was filed over five years after her last vaccination and symptom onset.

Kirby argued for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, citing her minor status at the time of vaccination and her later discovery of the Vaccine Program. She also alleged fraudulent conduct by the vaccine manufacturer and a failure to provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at the time of vaccination.

The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, represented by Julia M. Collison of the U.S.

Department of Justice, argued for dismissal due to the untimely filing. Chief Special Master Brian H.

Corcoran issued the decision. The court found that the petition was untimely filed and that Kirby failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling.

The decision noted that the Vaccine Act does not provide for tolling based solely on minority status, and ignorance of the Vaccine Program does not support equitable tolling. Furthermore, Kirby did not provide evidence that her mother, who managed her medical care, failed to diligently pursue her claim or that any extraordinary circumstances prevented a timely filing.

Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were also deemed insufficient to warrant tolling. The public decision does not describe the specific clinical details of the POTS diagnosis, any medical tests performed, or the specific treatments received.

The decision also does not name any medical experts or detail the specific mechanism of injury. Consequently, the case was dismissed for being untimely filed.

The decision was made public as it contained a reasoned explanation for the action taken.