VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01909
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01909
Petitioner: J.F.
Filed: 2024-06-18
Decided: 2024-07-16
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2018-02-08
Condition: epilepsy
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Christina Federline filed a petition for compensation on behalf of her minor child, J.F., on October 27, 2023, alleging that J.F. suffered injuries from two human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations received on February 8, 2018, and August 3, 2020. J.F. was eleven years old at the time of the first vaccination and thirteen years old at the time of the second. The petition alleged that J.F. began experiencing "staring spells" a few times a month around 2017 or 2018, with episodes of disorientation and spacing out occurring "shortly after" the second HPV vaccination in August 2020. The first "bigger seizure" reportedly occurred on November 28, 2020, and J.F. was later diagnosed with epilepsy. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the petition was filed outside the Vaccine Act's 36-month statute of limitations. The petitioner acknowledged the untimeliness of the filing but argued for equitable tolling, asserting that she learned about the Vaccine Program only in June 2023 and that J.F.'s minor status at the time of vaccination impeded diligent pursuit. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms of the "staring spells" or disorientation, nor does it detail any medical tests or treatments undertaken for J.F.'s condition. The decision also does not name any medical experts. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the case. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish both diligent pursuit and extraordinary circumstances, which are required for equitable tolling. The court noted that the Vaccine Act does not contain a provision for minority tolling and that unawareness of the Vaccine Program does not support equitable tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were also deemed insufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances. The court found that the petitioner's arguments about the vaccine manufacturer's purported fraudulent conduct were speculative and not evidentiarily supported, and that even if true, such allegations do not rise to the level of "fraud" that might excuse failing to file a Program claim in a timely manner. The court also addressed the petitioner's claim that she did not receive a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) or information about the Vaccine Program, noting that the contemporaneous medical records for both vaccination appointments stated that the petitioner and J.F. were provided with VIS and counseling. The court concluded that the petitioner had not established equitable tolling and therefore granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, finding the case was untimely filed. The case was dismissed on July 16, 2024. Petitioner's counsel was Bijan Esfandiari of Wisner Baum LLP, and respondent's counsel was Julia M. Collison of the U.S. Department of Justice. No award amount was granted as the case was dismissed.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Christina Federline filed a petition on behalf of minor J.F. alleging injury from HPV vaccinations on February 8, 2018, and August 3, 2020, with alleged onset of "staring spells" around 2017-2018 and disorientation/seizures after the second dose, leading to an epilepsy diagnosis. The petition was filed on October 27, 2023, which was outside the 36-month statute of limitations. Petitioner sought equitable tolling, arguing unawareness of the Vaccine Program until June 2023 and J.F.'s minor status impeded diligent pursuit. Respondent moved to dismiss for untimeliness. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran granted the motion, finding Petitioner failed to establish both diligent pursuit and extraordinary circumstances. The court held that the Vaccine Act does not provide for minority tolling, unawareness of the program does not support tolling, and allegations of manufacturer misconduct did not constitute extraordinary circumstances. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, name medical experts, or detail the clinical progression beyond the initial allegations and diagnosis. The case was dismissed on July 16, 2024. Attorneys: Bijan Esfandiari for Petitioner, Julia M. Collison for Respondent. No award was made.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01909-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-16
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/18/2024) regarding 13 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01909-UNJ Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1909V
UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTINA FEDERLINE, on behalf of
her minor child, J.F., Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 18, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bijan Esfandiari, Wisner Baum LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Julia M. Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On October 27, 2023, Christina Federline filed a petition for compensation on
behalf of her minor child, J.F., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,
42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that J.F.
suffered various injuries from human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccinations he received on
February 8, 2018, and August 3, 2020.2 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
On February 8, 2018, at the age of eleven, J.F. went with his mother, Petitioner,
and his father to a well visit where J.F. received the first dose of the HPV vaccine. Exhibit
9 at 11. At this appointment, the medical records state that the medical professional
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 The petition and Petitioner’s affidavits (exhibits 1 and 7) incorrectly state J.F. received the second HPV
vaccination on June 3, 2020.

Case 1:23-vv-01909-UNJ Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 2 of 6
“discussed need for vaccines, reviewed side effects and [Vaccine information Statement
(VIS)]” with J.F. and his parents. Id. at 3, 13.
On August 3, 2020, at the age of thirteen, J.F. went with Petitioner to receive the
second dose of the HPV vaccine. Exhibit 9 at 9. At this appointment, the medical records
state that a medical professional “discussed with need for any vaccines, reviewed side
effects and VIS” with J.F. and Petitioner. Id. at 3, 11.
At an August 4, 2021 pediatric neurology appointment, Petitioner reported that J.F.
began having “staring spells” a few times a month around 2017 or 2018. Exhibit 10 at 84.
J.F.’s eyes would flutter and his lips would intermittently tremble during the spells. Id. In
her affidavit dated October 27, 2023, Petitioner attested that “shortly after” the second
HPV vaccination on August 3, 2020, J.F. began to experience episodes of disorientation
and spacing out. Exhibit 1 ¶ 7. Petitioner reported that the first “bigger seizure” occurred
on November 28, 2020. Exhibit 10 at 84. Petitioner was later diagnosed with epilepsy.
ECF No. 1 ¶ 8.
Facially, Petitioner’s claim herein was filed over three years after J.F.’s most recent
HPV dose, which was administered in August 2020, and over three years from the time
J.F. began manifesting symptoms “shortly after” that dose.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 VIS was provided,
and no information was relayed about the Vaccine Program.4 Exhibit 1 ¶ 5. Petitioner
stated that she did not learn about the Vaccine Program until June 2023 from a friend,
but she filed a vaccine claim soon after. Exhibit 7 ¶ 7.
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. 6. Respondent maintained that Petitioner had not diligently pursued J.F.’s rights
on his behalf 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
3 The petition is vague about the onset of J.F.’s symptoms and none of Petitioner’s subsequent filings
have clarified when Petitioner believes J.F.’s symptoms first began. However, Petitioner’s response to the
motion to dismiss does not contain a medical history and does not dispute the factual issue that the
petition was filed more than thirty-six months after the onset of J.F.’s symptoms. I understand Petitioner to
have conceded the general factual issue that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations time
period.
4 Although J.F.’s father accompanied J.F. and his mother to the first HPV vaccination appointment,
Petitioner has not provided an affidavit from J.F.’s father about whether any vaccine counseling or VIS
was provided at that time.
2

Case 1:23-vv-01909-UNJ Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 3 of 6
constitute an extraordinary circumstance that would serve as a basis for tolling the statute
of limitations.
On December 12, 2023, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 11. Petitioner did not
dispute the onset of symptoms or that her petition was untimely filed, but instead argued
that the limitations period should be equitably tolled. Petitioner asserted that she had
diligently pursued J.F.’s rights once she realized the connection between J.F.’s 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. 11 at 18. Relatedly, Petitioner argued that the failure of healthcare
professionals to provide her with Vaccine Information Statements at the time of the
vaccinations on behalf of J.F. 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 J.F.’s minor status at the time of
the vaccinations impeded the diligent pursuit of a vaccine claim.5 Id. at 16.
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,
5 Petitioner incorrectly states that J.F. turned eighteen in 2023. ECF No. 11 at 16. Petitioner’s affidavit and
all the medical records indicate that J.F. will turn eighteen later in 2024.
3

Case 1:23-vv-01909-UNJ Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 4 of 6
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
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 stated that she diligently began to pursue J.F.’s claim after she learned
about the Vaccine Program in June 2023. Petitioner argues that her diligent pursuit of
J.F.’s vaccine claim was impeded by J.F.’s minor status when the vaccines were
administered.
These arguments are wholly unpersuasive. First, 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
4

Case 1:23-vv-01909-UNJ Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 5 of 6
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.”
Second, Petitioner attempts to leverage A.W.’s minor status at the time of
vaccination into an exception to the above. 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.6
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. 11 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.7 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 2018 or 2020, is an
extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation,8 it
6 In fact, the HPV vaccine was added to the Table in 2007 – thirteen 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.
7 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).
8 The contemporaneous medical records for both vaccination appointments state that Petitioner and J.F.
were provided with VIS and vaccine counseling regarding the benefits, risks, and potential side effects of
the HPV vaccine. Exhibit 9 at 3, 11, and 13. Petitioner’s only evidence that no VIS or information about the
Vaccine Program was provided is her affidavit dated October 27, 2023, in which she attested about events
5

Case 1:23-vv-01909-UNJ Document 14 Filed 07/16/24 Page 6 of 6
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.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
that occurred three and five years earlier. Exhibit 1 ¶ 5. Petitioner incorrectly asserts that this factual issue
is undisputed since her statements conflict with the medical records. ECF No. 11 at 17 n.4.
9 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