Jewel Wren v. HHS - HPV, pelvic pain, pelvic surgery, cyst, adenomyosis, endometriosis (2024)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Jewel Wren, who was seventeen years old at the time, received two doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine on April 7, 2009, and June 10, 2009. She filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 22, 2024, alleging that she suffered severe pelvic pain, leading to pelvic surgery in 2010 for a cyst, followed by diagnoses of adenomyosis in 2017 and endometriosis in 2022.
The petition was filed over fourteen years after her last HPV dose and over thirteen years after she began experiencing symptoms in 2010. The Special Master considered whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.
Petitioner argued that her minor status at the time of vaccination and the alleged failure of vaccine administrators to provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) or information about the Vaccine Program constituted extraordinary circumstances. The Special Master found that the Vaccine Act does not provide for minority tolling and that the failure to provide a VIS or information about the program does not support equitable tolling, as claims accrue upon symptom onset regardless of awareness.
The Special Master also rejected arguments about the vaccine manufacturer's alleged fraudulent conduct as speculative and not a basis for tolling. Because Petitioner failed to establish both diligent pursuit of her rights and extraordinary circumstances, the Special Master granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss.
The case was dismissed for being untimely filed. Petitioner was represented by Andrew D.
Downing of Downing, Allison & Jorgenson, and Respondent was represented by Julia M. Collison of the U.S.
Department of Justice. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H.
Corcoran.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Jewel Wren, vaccinated with HPV on April 7, 2009, and June 10, 2009, at age seventeen, alleged pelvic pain, surgery, cyst, adenomyosis, and endometriosis. The petition was filed on May 22, 2024, over fourteen years after the last vaccination and over thirteen years after symptom onset in 2010. Respondent moved to dismiss for untimeliness. Petitioner sought equitable tolling, arguing minority status at vaccination and lack of a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) or program information constituted extraordinary circumstances. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, found the Vaccine Act does not provide for minority tolling and that lack of awareness of the program or VIS does not support equitable tolling, as claims accrue upon symptom onset. Arguments regarding the vaccine manufacturer's alleged fraudulent conduct were deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. Petitioner failed to establish diligent pursuit and extraordinary circumstances. The case was dismissed as untimely. Petitioner was represented by Andrew D. Downing, and Respondent by Julia M. Collison. The decision was issued on June 18, 2024.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01705