VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01038
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01038
Petitioner: Angela Walker
Filed: 2024-02-29
Decided: 2024-03-26
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2015-08-14
Condition: chronic fatigue syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Angela Walker filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging injuries from three Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations received on November 17, 2008, January 19, 2009, and August 14, 2015. She claimed to have experienced symptoms of autonomic dysfunction after the first two vaccinations and significant symptoms, including chronic headaches, fatigue, dizziness, fainting, difficulty concentrating, memory issues, communication problems, walking difficulties, sleep disturbances, insomnia, abnormal sensations, and widespread pain, after the third vaccination. She was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome in November 2016. The petition was filed on February 29, 2024, which was nearly eight years after her last HPV vaccination in 2015 and at least seven years after she began experiencing symptoms. The court ordered Ms. Walker to show cause why her claim should not be dismissed as untimely. Ms. Walker argued for equitable tolling, asserting she was unaware of the Vaccine Program and the potential for adverse effects until April 2023, and that she immediately contacted an attorney thereafter. She also contended that the failure to provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at the time of vaccination constituted an extraordinary circumstance. The respondent argued for dismissal due to untimeliness. The court found that Ms. Walker failed to establish both elements required for equitable tolling: diligent pursuit of her rights and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing. The court noted that the statute of limitations accrues upon symptom onset, regardless of awareness, and that failure to be advised of the Vaccine Program does not support equitable tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were also deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as untimely filed.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01038-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-26
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/29/2024) regarding 15 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01038-UNJ Document 19 Filed 03/26/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1038V
UNPUBLISHED
ANGELA WALKER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: February 29, 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 July 5, 2023, Angela Walker filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered various injuries from human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccinations she received on November 17, 2008, January 19,
2009, and August 14, 2015. 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
After the first two HPV vaccinations in 2008 and 2009, but before the third
vaccination in 2015, Petitioner stated she began experiencing “symptoms of autonomic
dysfunction.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 4. After the third vaccination, Petitioner began experiencing
major symptoms such as severe chronic headaches, extreme fatigue, constant dizziness
when standing, passing out and falling, difficulty in concentrating, remembering, difficulty
in communicating effectively, difficulty walking long distances, severe sleep disturbances,
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.

Case 1:23-vv-01038-UNJ Document 19 Filed 03/26/24 Page 2 of 5
insomnia, abnormal sensations, and widespread chronic pain. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. Petitioner was
diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome in November 2016. Id. ¶ 7.
Petitioner alleged the preceding medical history in the petition and repeated the
history in her response to the order to show cause. Facially, Petitioner’s claim herein was
filed almost eight years after her last HPV dose, which was administered in 2015, and at
least seven years from the time she began manifesting symptoms after the most recent
HPV vaccination. But Petitioner maintains her delay is excusable. Thus, in an affidavit
dated June 27, 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 only learned that the HPV vaccine
might be capable of causing adverse effects in April 2023, but then immediately contacted
an attorney thereafter. Exhibit 10 ¶ 8.
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. 8.
On November 28, 2023, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 10. Petitioner did not
dispute the most recent onset of symptoms in 2015, or that her petition was filed in 2023
(and not sooner than 2018, 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.
10 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 5, 2023, Respondent submitted a responsive brief of his own,
arguing for dismissal due to untimeliness. ECF No. 12. 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,
and whether it could in any event constitute an extraordinary circumstance that would
serve as a basis for tolling of the statute of limitations.
2

Case 1:23-vv-01038-UNJ Document 19 Filed 03/26/24 Page 3 of 5
On December 19, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s arguments. ECF
No. 14. The reply generally reiterates 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”).
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 was twenty-two years old when she received the November 17, 2008
and January 19, 2009 HPV vaccinations and was twenty-nine years old when she
3

Case 1:23-vv-01038-UNJ Document 19 Filed 03/26/24 Page 4 of 5
received the August 14, 2015 HPV vaccination. Petitioner argues that she was impeded
by the failure of the vaccine administrators to provide her with a VIS or any other
information about the Vaccine Program at the vaccination appointments. 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. 8 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.2 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 2008, 2009, or 2015,
is an extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation,3
2 The HPV vaccine was first added to the Table in 2007. 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).
3 In an affidavit dated June 27, 2023, Petitioner attested that she did not receive a VIS or any information
about the Vaccine Program following the three HPV vaccinations in 2008, 2009, and 2015. Exhibit 1 ¶ 2.
But the contemporaneous medical records for the 2008 and 2009 HPV vaccinations state that Petitioner
4

Case 1:23-vv-01038-UNJ Document 19 Filed 03/26/24 Page 5 of 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. 14 at 15. 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
received a VIS following the vaccinations. Exhibit 3 at 1. The notation for the 2015 HPV vaccination in
exhibit 3 contains minimal information compared to the other HPV vaccinations which suggests that this
vaccination was administered at a different medical facility. Looking at exhibit 4 (from which exhibit 3 is
extracted), a Tdap vaccination administered on the same date as the 2015 HPV vaccination states that the
source of the vaccination information is from MIIC, the Minnesota Immunization Information Connection,
i.e., the vaccination was administered at another facility and basic vaccination information was imported.
Thus, Petitioner has not provided the vaccine administration record for the 2015 HPV vaccination to
determine whether VIS or other information was provided to her.
4 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