VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01172
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01172
Petitioner: Natalie Parsons
Filed: 2024-03-22
Decided: 2024-04-16
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2013-10-15
Condition: mood swings, irrationally and uncharacteristically angry, chronically fatigued and exhausted, hot flashes, sexual issues, night sweats, vision changes, menstrual issues, premature ovarian failure and menopause
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Natalie Parsons filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 28, 2023, alleging that she suffered various injuries following her third dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which she received on October 15, 2013. At the time of vaccination, Ms. Parsons was 25 years old. The alleged injuries included mood swings, uncharacteristic anger, chronic fatigue and exhaustion, hot flashes, sexual issues, night sweats, vision changes, menstrual issues, premature ovarian failure, and menopause. Ms. Parsons stated that her symptoms began after the third HPV vaccination. She reported experiencing mood swings and anger first, followed by fatigue, hot flashes, sexual issues, night sweats, vision changes, and menstrual issues, ultimately leading to a diagnosis of premature ovarian failure and menopause. While she did not provide a specific timeline for all symptoms, medical records indicated she stopped having a menstrual cycle in 2019, suggesting earlier symptoms occurred between 2013 and 2019. The petition was filed nearly ten years after her last HPV vaccination and the onset of her symptoms. Ms. Parsons 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 potential adverse effects in 2022, subsequently contacting an attorney in April 2023. She also alleged fraudulent conduct by the vaccine manufacturer in concealing the vaccine's harmful nature. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, argued for dismissal due to the untimely filing. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the arguments and legal standards. The Special Master noted that the Vaccine Act has a 36-month statute of limitations, which begins to run from the manifestation of the first objectively cognizable symptom, regardless of the claimant's understanding of its significance. The court found that Ms. Parsons failed to establish a basis for equitable tolling. The Special Master determined that Ms. Parsons did not diligently pursue her rights, as the statute of limitations is not subject to a "discovery rule" and the failure to provide a VIS or information about the Vaccine Program does not support equitable tolling. Allegations of fraudulent conduct by the manufacturer were deemed speculative, unsupported by evidence, and not a basis for tolling under the circumstances. The Special Master also referenced prior rulings indicating that medical science does not predominantly support the contention that the HPV vaccine causes various autonomic issues. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for being untimely filed. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on April 16, 2024. Petitioner counsel was Andrew D. Downing, and respondent counsel was Julia M. Collison.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Natalie Parsons, age 25, received her third dose of the HPV vaccine on October 15, 2013. She alleged onset of mood swings, anger, fatigue, hot flashes, sexual issues, night sweats, vision changes, menstrual issues, premature ovarian failure, and menopause following the vaccination. The petition was filed on July 28, 2023, nearly ten years after the vaccination and symptom onset. Petitioner sought equitable tolling of the 36-month statute of limitations, arguing she did not receive a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at vaccination, only learned of potential adverse effects in 2022, and contacted an attorney in April 2023. She also alleged fraudulent concealment by the vaccine manufacturer. Respondent argued for dismissal due to untimeliness. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the case, finding Petitioner failed to establish equitable tolling. The Special Master held that the Vaccine Act does not have a discovery rule and the statute of limitations is triggered by symptom onset, irrespective of claimant's awareness. Failure to provide a VIS or information about the Vaccine Program does not support equitable tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or award details, as the case was dismissed on timeliness grounds. Petitioner counsel was Andrew D. Downing; respondent counsel was Julia M. Collison. Decision date: April 16, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01172-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-04-16
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/22/2024) regarding 19 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01172-UNJ Document 20 Filed 04/16/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1172V
UNPUBLISHED
NATALIE PARSONS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: March 22, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Andrew D. Downing, Downing, Allison, and Jorgenson, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Julia M. Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On July 28, 2023, Natalie Parsons 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 a human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccination, the third dose, she received on October 15, 2013.
ECF No. 1 at 3.
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 October 15, 2013, Petitioner received the third dose of the HPV vaccine when
she was twenty-five years old.2 Exhibit 3.3 Petitioner stated that after the vaccination she
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 Petitioner received the first two HPV vaccinations on April 26, 2013, and June 15, 2013, but she is only
alleging that her symptoms began after the third HPV vaccination. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 4.
3 Petitioner has not identified the vaccine administrator or the medical facility where the vaccination
occurred in the petition or in her affidavits. The vaccination record provided by Petitioner is only a photo of

Case 1:23-vv-01172-UNJ Document 20 Filed 04/16/24 Page 2 of 6
first developed mood swings and became irrationally and uncharacteristically angry. ECF
No. 1 ¶ 4. Petitioner’s sleep changed to the point where she became chronically fatigued
and exhausted. Id. ¶ 5. Petitioner then developed various other symptoms: hot flashes,
sexual issues, night sweats, vision changes, and menstrual issues. Id. ¶¶ 6-10. Petitioner
was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure and menopause. Id. ¶ 11. Petitioner listed
this sequence of symptoms but did not provide a timeline for the symptoms. Looking at
one of the later symptoms in the sequence, menstrual issues, the medical records support
that Petitioner stopped having a menstrual cycle in 2019. Exhibit 4 at 2. It is reasonable
to infer that the earlier symptoms in the sequence occurred sometime between 2013 and
2019.
Facially, Petitioner’s claim herein was filed almost ten years after her last HPV
dose, which was administered in 2013, and almost ten years from the time she began
manifesting symptoms or the symptoms were significantly aggravated. But Petitioner
maintains her delay is excusable. Thus, in an affidavit dated July 28, 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 2022 and contacted an attorney in April 2023. Exhibit 27 ¶ 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,”4 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. 11.
On November 21, 2023, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 15. Petitioner did not
dispute the onset (or aggravation) of symptoms in 2013, or that her petition was filed in
2023 (and not sooner than 2016), 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. 15
at 25. 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
a small portion of a document that appears to be a vaccination history. Exhibit 3 at 2. This document not
identify the vaccine administrator, medical facility, or even Petitioner herself.
4 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-01172-UNJ Document 20 Filed 04/16/24 Page 3 of 6
and Human Services’ failure to systematically ensure that VIS are explained and provided
to all vaccine recipients. Id. at 9.
On January 9, 2024, Respondent submitted a responsive brief of his own, arguing
for dismissal due to untimeliness. ECF No. 17. 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.
On January 23, 2024, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s arguments. ECF No.
18. 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 as a basis for equitable tolling—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”).
3

Case 1:23-vv-01172-UNJ Document 20 Filed 04/16/24 Page 4 of 6
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-five years old when she received the October 15, 2023 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 2022 after she
learned that the HPV vaccine could have adverse effects and sought legal counsel in
April 2023.
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. 15 at 22. 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,
4

Case 1:23-vv-01172-UNJ Document 20 Filed 04/16/24 Page 5 of 6
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 2013, 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. 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). 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
5 As noted above, Petitioner has at most submitted a vaccination history to document the October 15, 2023
HPV vaccination. Exhibit 3 at 2. Again, this vaccination history does not identify the vaccine administrator,
medical facility, or even Petitioner herself. Medical providers typically note in vaccine administration
appointment records whether vaccine counseling or a VIS has been provided to a patient. Petitioner has
not identified the vaccine administrator and has not submitted the vaccine administration appointment
records. The only evidence that no VIS or information about the Vaccine Program was provided is
Petitioner’s affidavit dated July 28, 2023, in which she attested about events that occurred almost ten years
earlier. 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

Case 1:23-vv-01172-UNJ Document 20 Filed 04/16/24 Page 6 of 6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6