Cameron Authement v. HHS - HPV, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) (2024)

On January 24, 2024, Cameron Authement filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging injuries from three doses of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine received on January 22, 2019, March 25, 2019, and July 29, 2019. At the time of the first two vaccinations, Authement was fifteen years old, and she was sixteen when she received the third dose.

Following the second vaccination, Authement reported experiencing breathing complications, fainting spells, and fatigue, and was later diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). The petition was filed over three and a half years after the last vaccination and symptom onset.

Authement argued for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, citing her minor status at the time of vaccination, the alleged failure of vaccine administrators to provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS), and purported fraudulent conduct by the vaccine manufacturer. Respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the petition was untimely.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision on September 20, 2024.

The court found that the Vaccine Act does not provide for tolling based on minority, and Authement did not allege that her parents or legal guardians were ineffective in managing her affairs. The court also rejected the argument that the failure to provide a VIS or the manufacturer's alleged misconduct constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The decision noted that claims accrue upon symptom onset, and lack of awareness of the Vaccine Program does not support equitable tolling. The public decision does not describe specific symptoms beyond those listed, medical tests, or treatments.

Petitioner was represented by Tracy Turner of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, and Respondent was represented by Julia M. Collison of the U.S.

Department of Justice. Consequently, the court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, finding the petition was untimely filed and no basis for equitable tolling was established.

The case was dismissed.