VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01832
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01832
Petitioner: Caroline Horochak
Filed: 2024-06-05
Decided: 2024-07-02
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2012-04-20
Condition: chronic fatigue, stomach issues, lung issues, hormonal problems and menstrual issues, polycystic ovary syndrome, fibromyalgia
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Caroline Horochak filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 18, 2023, alleging injuries from a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination received on April 20, 2012. Ms. Horochak, who was twenty-three years old at the time of vaccination, stated that within a month of receiving the vaccine, she developed chronic fatigue, stomach issues, lung issues, hormonal problems, and menstrual issues. She was later diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome in 2016 and fibromyalgia. The petition was filed over eleven years after her last HPV vaccination and the onset of her symptoms in May 2012. Ms. Horochak argued for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, asserting that she was not provided a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at the time of vaccination and only learned about potential adverse effects of the HPV vaccine and the Vaccine Program in April 2023. She also alleged fraudulent conduct by the vaccine manufacturer in concealing the vaccine's harmful character. The respondent argued for dismissal due to the petition being untimely filed. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran ordered Ms. Horochak to show cause why the claim should not be dismissed as untimely. In her response, Ms. Horochak did not dispute the timing of her symptom onset but argued for equitable tolling, claiming diligent pursuit of her rights once she realized the connection between her injuries and the vaccine and became aware of the program. The respondent countered that Ms. Horochak had not diligently pursued her rights and disputed the claims of manufacturer misconduct and its relevance to tolling. The Special Master found that Ms. Horochak failed to establish both elements required for equitable tolling: diligent pursuit of her rights and the presence of extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that the Vaccine Act does not have a discovery rule and that the statute of limitations begins to run from the manifestation of the first objectively cognizable symptom. The Special Master determined that the failure to provide a VIS or information about the Vaccine Program does not support equitable tolling, citing precedent that a petitioner cannot shield an untimely claim by asserting unawareness of their rights. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were also deemed insufficient to warrant tolling, as they were speculative, not personally directed at Ms. Horochak, and not a basis for tolling under the circumstances. The Special Master also referenced prior rulings in numerous cases finding that medical science does not predominantly support the contention that the HPV vaccine can cause various autonomic issues. Consequently, the case was dismissed as untimely filed. The Clerk of Court was ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Caroline Horochak, age 23, received an HPV vaccination on April 20, 2012. She alleged onset of chronic fatigue, stomach issues, lung issues, hormonal problems, and menstrual issues in May 2012, later diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome and fibromyalgia. The petition was filed on October 18, 2023, over eleven years after symptom onset, triggering the 36-month statute of limitations under the Vaccine Act. Petitioner sought equitable tolling, arguing she did not receive a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) and was unaware of the Vaccine Program until April 2023, and alleging manufacturer misconduct. Respondent argued for dismissal due to untimeliness. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the case, finding Petitioner failed to establish both elements for equitable tolling: diligent pursuit of rights and extraordinary circumstances. The Special Master noted the Vaccine Act lacks a discovery rule, accrual is based on symptom onset, and failure to receive a VIS or be informed of the program does not support tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. The decision referenced prior rulings that medical science does not predominantly support claims that the HPV vaccine causes autonomic issues. No specific medical experts or detailed causation mechanism were presented or discussed in the public decision. The case was dismissed as untimely filed.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01832-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-02
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/5/2024) regarding 16 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01832-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/02/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1832V
UNPUBLISHED
CAROLINE HOROCHAK,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: June 5, 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 18, 2023, Caroline Horochak filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered various injuries from a human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccination she received on April 20, 2012.2 ECF No. 1 at 2-3.
Because the petition was untimely filed, and Petitioner has failed to establish a
basis for equitable tolling, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Factual Background
Petitioner received an HPV vaccination on April 20, 2012, when she was twenty-
three years old. ECF No. 1. Petitioner provided a vaccination history to support this
vaccination but has not submitted a vaccine administration record. Exhibit 4 at 9. Before
this vaccination, Petitioner attested that she was “healthy and happy.” Exhibit 1
(affidavit) ¶ 3.
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 also received HPV vaccinations on October 26, 2011, and December 21, 2011, but she is not
alleging any adverse reactions from those doses.

Case 1:23-vv-01832-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/02/24 Page 2 of 5
After the April 20, 2012 HPV vaccination, Petitioner stated she developed chronic
fatigue, stomach issues, lung issues, hormonal problems and menstrual issues with the
earliest symptom beginning in May 2012. ECF No. 1 ¶ 4; exhibit 12 ¶ 1. Petitioner was
eventually diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome in 2016 and was later diagnosed
with fibromyalgia. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5-6.
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 over eleven years after her last HPV dose, which was administered in 2012, and
eleven years after she began manifesting symptoms in May 2012. But Petitioner
maintains her delay is excusable. Thus, in an affidavit dated January 8, 2024, 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
12 ¶¶ 3, 4. Petitioner only learned that the HPV vaccine might be capable of causing
adverse effects or that she had a legal remedy in April 2023. Id. ¶ 7.
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. 9.
On January 8, 2024, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 12. Petitioner did not
dispute that the onset of symptoms occurred more than three years before the petition
was filed in 2023, 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. 12 at 18. 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 4.
On January 9, 2024, Respondent submitted a responsive brief of his own, arguing
for dismissal due to untimeliness. ECF No. 14. 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
2

Case 1:23-vv-01832-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/02/24 Page 3 of 5
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.
15. 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.
3

Case 1:23-vv-01832-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/02/24 Page 4 of 5
A) Diligent pursuit
Petitioner was twenty-three years old when she received the HPV vaccination at
issue.3 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 after she learned that the HPV vaccine
had potential adverse effects in April 2023 and that she had a legal remedy.
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. 12 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. 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 2012, is an
extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation,4 it
3 Petitioner was twenty-two years old when she received the first and second doses of the HPV vaccine.
4 Vaccine administration records typically state whether VIS are provided to patients and/or whether
patients have been counseled about the vaccine. As noted above, Petitioner has not submitted a vaccine
4

Case 1:23-vv-01832-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/02/24 Page 5 of 5
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. 15 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., J.S. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 16-1083V, 2022 WL 20213038, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2022),
mot. for review denied, 164 Fed. Cl. 314 (2023), appeal docketed, No. 23-1644 (Fed. Cir.
Mar. 22, 2023); 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.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
administration record for the HPV vaccination at issue. Contrary to Petitioner’s claim, the vaccination history
notes the version of the VIS that was provided to her. Petitioner’s only evidence that no VIS or information
about the Vaccine Program was provided is her affidavit dated January 8, 2024, in which she attested about
events that occurred nearly twelve years earlier. Exhibit 12 ¶¶ 3, 4.
5 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