VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02119
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02119
Petitioner: John P. Lynch
Filed: 2024-07-30
Decided: 2024-08-27
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2020-06-22
Condition: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
John P. Lynch, an eighteen-year-old adult, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 20, 2023. He alleged that he suffered injuries from a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination he received on June 22, 2020. Mr. Lynch stated that within hours of the vaccination, he began experiencing symptoms including headaches, rapid heart rate, dizziness, weight loss, and loss of appetite, with at least some symptoms manifesting in July 2020. He was later diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition was filed outside the Vaccine Act's 36-month statute of limitations. Mr. Lynch argued for equitable tolling, asserting that he was not provided a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at the time of vaccination and only learned of the potential link between the HPV vaccine and adverse effects in September 2022, and became aware of the Vaccine Program in June 2023. He also made allegations regarding the vaccine manufacturer's conduct. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran considered the legal standards for the Vaccine Act's statute of limitations, which begins to run from the manifestation of the first objectively cognizable symptom, and the doctrine of equitable tolling, which requires diligent pursuit of rights and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing. The Special Master found that Mr. Lynch failed to establish both elements for equitable tolling. The Special Master determined that the statute of limitations is triggered by symptom onset, not by a claimant's awareness of a potential cause of action or the Vaccine Program, and that the failure to be advised of the Vaccine Program does not support equitable tolling. The Special Master also rejected the arguments about the vaccine manufacturer's conduct as speculative, unsupported, and not a basis for tolling. Consequently, the Special Master granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, and the case was dismissed for being untimely filed. Petitioner counsel was Bijan Esfandiari of Wisner Baum LLP, and respondent counsel was 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 John P. Lynch, age 18, received an HPV vaccination on June 22, 2020. He alleged onset of symptoms including headaches, rapid heart rate, dizziness, weight loss, and loss of appetite in July 2020, and was later diagnosed with POTS. The petition was filed on December 20, 2023, which was outside the 36-month statute of limitations that began to run in July 2020. Petitioner sought equitable tolling, arguing he did not receive a VIS, was unaware of the Vaccine Program until June 2023, and alleged manufacturer misconduct. 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 required for equitable tolling. The Special Master noted that the statute of limitations accrues upon symptom onset, not awareness of a cause of action or the Vaccine Program, and that lack of a VIS or alleged manufacturer misconduct do not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying tolling under the Vaccine Act. The case was dismissed as untimely filed. Petitioner counsel: Bijan Esfandiari (Wisner Baum LLP). Respondent counsel: Julia M. Collison (U.S. Department of Justice). Decision date: August 27, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02119-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-27
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/30/2024) regarding 10 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-02119-UNJ Document 11 Filed 08/27/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-2119V
UNPUBLISHED
JOHN P. LYNCH,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: July 30, 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 December 13, 2023, John Lynch 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 he suffered various injuries from a human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccination he received on June 22, 2020. 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
Petitioner received an HPV vaccination on June 22, 2020, when he was eighteen
years old at a well man appointment. Exhibit 7 at 39. Petitioner stated that his mother
was present when he received this vaccination, but the appointment records do not
state that anyone accompanied Petitioner. Exhibit 1 (affidavit) ¶ 3; exhibit 7 at 37-40.
Even if Petitioner’s mother was present at the appointment, Petitioner has not submitted
an affidavit from her to support what happened during the appointment.
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-02119-UNJ Document 11 Filed 08/27/24 Page 2 of 5
After the HPV vaccination, Petitioner stated he began to experience headaches,
rapid heartrate, dizziness, weight loss, and loss of appetite. Exhibit 1 ¶ 5. At least some
of these symptoms began in July 2020. Exhibit 7 at 24. Petitioner was later diagnosed
with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (“POTS”). Exhibit 1 ¶ 6.
Facially, Petitioner’s claim herein was filed over three years after the HPV
vaccination, which was administered in June 2020, and three years after he began
manifesting symptoms in July 2020. But Petitioner maintains his delay is excusable. Thus,
in an affidavit dated December 13, 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 ¶ 3. Petitioner only learned
in September 2022 that the HPV vaccine might be capable of causing adverse effects
and only became aware of the Vaccine Program in June 2023. Id. ¶ 7; exhibit 3 ¶ 8.
Relevant Procedural History
On December 20, 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
his 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 February 2, 2024, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 8. Petitioner did not
dispute the onset of symptoms in July 2020, or that his petition was filed in 2023 (beyond
the statute of limitations deadline), but instead argued that the limitations period should
be equitably tolled. Petitioner asserted that he had diligently pursued his rights once he
realized the connection between his 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. 8 at 18. Relatedly,
Petitioner argued that the failure of a healthcare professional to provide him 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 2.
Respondent did not file a reply to Petitioner’s response.
2

Case 1:23-vv-02119-UNJ Document 11 Filed 08/27/24 Page 3 of 5
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.
A) Diligent pursuit
Petitioner was eighteen years old when he received the HPV vaccination at issue.
Petitioner argues that he was impeded by the failure of the vaccine administrator to
provide him with a VIS or any other information about the Vaccine Program. Petitioner
only began to diligently pursue a vaccine claim after he learned in June 2023 that he had
a legal remedy for potential adverse effects of the HPV vaccine.
3

Case 1:23-vv-02119-UNJ Document 11 Filed 08/27/24 Page 4 of 5
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. 8 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, him 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 he persuasively established
that the vaccine administrator’s “failure to warn,” or provide a VIS in 2020, is an
extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation, 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.
4

Case 1:23-vv-02119-UNJ Document 11 Filed 08/27/24 Page 5 of 5
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.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2 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