VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01705
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01705
Petitioner: Jewel Wren
Filed: 2024-05-22
Decided: 2024-06-18
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2009-06-10
Condition: pelvic pain, pelvic surgery, cyst, adenomyosis, endometriosis
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
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 field:
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.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01705-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-18
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/22/2024) regarding 15 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01705-UNJ Document 16 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1705V
UNPUBLISHED
JEWEL WREN,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: May 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 October 2, 2023, Jewel Wren 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 April 7, 2009, and June 10, 2009.
ECF No. 1 at 2.
Because the petition was untimely filed, and Petitioner has failed to establish a
basis for equitable tolling, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this case is
DISMISSED.
Relevant Factual Background
When she was seventeen years old, Petitioner received HPV vaccinations on April
7, 2009, and June 10, 2009, at Novant Health. Exhibit 3 (vaccination registry). While
Petitioner submitted the state vaccination registry to establish the HPV vaccinations, she
has not submitted any vaccine administration records or vaccine appointment records
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-01705-UNJ Document 16 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 6
from Novant Health.2 Petitioner was a minor during these vaccination appointments, but
she has not stated whether a parent or other legal guardian was present with her.
After the HPV vaccinations, Petitioner stated she began developing severe pelvic
pain resulting in pelvic surgery in 2010 for a large cyst. Exhibit 1 (affidavit) ¶ 5. Petitioner
continued having pelvic pain undergoing additional surgeries and treatments that later led
to an adenomyosis diagnosis in 2017 and an endometriosis diagnosis in 2022. Id. ¶¶ 6-
10.
Petitioner alleged the preceding medical history in the petition. Facially, Petitioner’s
claim herein was filed over fourteen after her last HPV dose, which was administered in
June 2009, and over thirteen years from the time she began manifesting symptoms in
2010.3 But Petitioner maintains her delay is excusable. Petitioner stated at the time this
vaccination occurred, no one discussed the possible adverse side effects of the HPV
vaccine, no Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) was provided, and no information was
relayed about the Vaccine Program. Exhibit 9 ¶¶ 4, 5. Petitioner stated that she only
learned about the Vaccine Program on her own in October 2022. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9. If a parent
or legal guardian had been present during the vaccine administration appointments,
Petitioner did not submit an affidavit from that parent about whether any counseling or
information was provided about the HPV vaccine or the Vaccine Program.
Relevant Procedural History
On November 7, 2023, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the claim
had been filed outside the Vaccine Act’s 36-month statute of limitations, Sec. 16(a)(2).
ECF No. 8. Respondent maintained that Petitioner 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 the statute of limitations.
On January 9, 2024, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 14. Petitioner did not
dispute the onset of symptoms in 2010, or that her petition was filed in 2023 (and not
sooner than 2013, 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
2 The medical records from Novant Health that were filed (exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 8) do not cover the time
period of the HPV vaccinations nor do they contain any documentation of the vaccinations.
3 Petitioner has not submitted any medical records to document the onset of her symptoms. For the
purposes of this decision, the onset of her symptoms will be based on the medical history alleged in the
petition.
2

Case 1:23-vv-01705-UNJ Document 16 Filed 06/18/24 Page 3 of 6
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.
14 at 18. Relatedly, Petitioner argued that the failure of a healthcare professional to
provide her with a Vaccine Information Statement 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 3. Petitioner
also argued that her minor status when receiving the vaccinations impeded her ability to
bring a vaccine claim. Id. at 2.
Respondent did not file a reply to Petitioner’s response.
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”).
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 could be a basis for
equitable tolling in the Program. For a mentally incapacitated individual, the Circuit
instructed that the details of the individual’s relationship with her legal guardian would
3

Case 1:23-vv-01705-UNJ Document 16 Filed 06/18/24 Page 4 of 6
affect whether there was reasonable diligence or extraordinary circumstances. K.G., 951
F.3d at 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2020). More recently, the Circuit concluded that a parent acting
as a legal guardian did not have extraordinary circumstances preventing the filing of a
petition where the parent: (1) routinely made medical decisions on behalf of the legally
incapacitated individual during the relevant time period, (2) had no documented strained
relationship with the individual, and (3) had no conflicts of interest dissuading the parent
from filing a petition. W.J. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 93 F.4th 1228, 1241 (Fed.
Cir. 2024).
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 seventeen years old when she received the April 7, 2009 and June
10, 2009 HPV vaccinations. Until she turned eighteen in 2010, Petitioner argues that her
diligent pursuit of her vaccine claim was impeded by her minor status when the
vaccinations were administered. After turning eighteen, 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 admits
that she only learned of the Vaccine Program in 2022 and then began to diligently pursue
her vaccine claim.
First, Petitioner incorrectly attempts to leverage A.W.’s minor status at the time of
vaccination into an exception to diligent pursuit. The Federal Circuit has conclusively
stated that Vaccine Act does not contain a provision for minority tolling and that Congress
did not intend to allow minority tolling. W.J., 93 F.4th at 1241. 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 – three 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-01705-UNJ Document 16 Filed 06/18/24 Page 5 of 6
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). However, Petitioner
has not alleged that her parents or legal guardians were ineffective at managing her
medical or legal affairs. I do not find any evidence that Petitioner’s parents or legal
guardians were ineffective and, thus, I do not find any grounds to toll the statute of
limitations while Petitioner was a minor.
Second, turning to Petitioner once she turned eighteen in 2010, the argument
about the vaccine administrators’ failure to provide a VIS or any other information about
the Vaccine Program is 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. 14 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.5 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
5 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).
5

Case 1:23-vv-01705-UNJ Document 16 Filed 06/18/24 Page 6 of 6
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 2009, is an
extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation,6 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.
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.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 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 vaccine administration
records for either of the HPV vaccines she received in 2009. Nor has Petitioner submitted any
contemporaneous medical records of the vaccinations to determine whether VIS were provided to her.
Petitioner’s only evidence that no VIS or information about the Vaccine Program was provided is her
affidavit dated September 29, 2023, in which she attested about events that occurred over fourteen years
earlier when she was a teenager. Exhibit 1 ¶ 2.
7 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.”
6