VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01462
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01462
Petitioner: Julia Obermier
Filed: 2024-09-19
Decided: 2025-04-08
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2018-09-20
Condition: extreme allergies, rapid heart rate, fatigue, abnormal perspiration without exercise, joint stiffness, abnormal menstruation, muscle fatigue, and weight gain, diagnosed as chronic fatigue
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Julia Obermier, a 23-year-old adult, filed a petition on September 19, 2024, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered injuries from three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations received on September 20, 2018, March 21, 2019, and September 23, 2019. Ms. Obermier claimed that within six months of her final vaccination, by April 2020, she developed symptoms including extreme allergies, rapid heart rate, fatigue, abnormal perspiration without exercise, joint stiffness, abnormal menstruation, muscle fatigue, and weight gain. She was later diagnosed with chronic fatigue in 2020. The petition was filed nearly five years after her last vaccination and over four years after her symptoms began. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, argued for dismissal due to the untimeliness of the filing. Ms. Obermier argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled, asserting that she was not provided with a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at the time of vaccination and only learned about the Vaccine Program and potential adverse effects in July 2023. She also alleged fraudulent conduct by the vaccine manufacturer in concealing the vaccine's dangers. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision on April 8, 2025, dismissing the case. The Special Master found that Ms. Obermier failed to establish the two elements required for equitable tolling: diligent pursuit of her rights and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing. The Special Master noted that the Vaccine Act does not have a discovery rule and that the statute of limitations is triggered by the onset of symptoms, regardless of whether the claimant understood their significance. The failure to be informed about the Vaccine Program or the Act does not support equitable tolling. Furthermore, the Special Master found Ms. Obermier's allegations of fraudulent conduct by the manufacturer to be speculative and not a basis for tolling, as they were not specific to her personally and did not rise to the level of "fraud" that would excuse a late filing. The Special Master also rejected the argument that the vaccine administrator's failure to provide a VIS constituted an extraordinary circumstance, reiterating that claims accrue upon symptom onset and lack of information does not toll the statute. 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 Julia Obermier, age 23, received three HPV vaccinations on September 20, 2018, March 21, 2019, and September 23, 2019. She alleged onset of extreme allergies, rapid heart rate, fatigue, abnormal perspiration, joint stiffness, abnormal menstruation, muscle fatigue, and weight gain by April 2020, and a diagnosis of chronic fatigue in 2020. The petition was filed on September 19, 2024, which was untimely as it was filed more than 36 months after symptom onset. Petitioner sought equitable tolling, arguing she did not receive a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) and was unaware of the Vaccine Program or potential adverse effects until July 2023, and alleged fraudulent concealment by the vaccine manufacturer. Respondent argued the petition was untimely. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the case on April 8, 2025, finding Petitioner failed to establish diligent pursuit or extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling. The Special Master held that the Vaccine Act has no discovery rule, claims accrue upon symptom onset, and lack of awareness of the program or a causal link does not support tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. Petitioner counsel: Bijan Esfandiari (Wisner Baum LLP). Respondent counsel: Julia M. Collison (U.S. Department of Justice). No award was made as the case was dismissed.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01462-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-08
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/12/2025) regarding 11 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-01462-UNJ Document 12 Filed 04/08/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1462V
UNPUBLISHED
JULIA OBERMIER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: March 12, 2025
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 September 19, 2024, Julia Obermier filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 342
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered various injuries from human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccinations she received on September 20, 2018, March 21,
2019, and September 23, 2019. ECF No. 1 at 2.
Because the petition was untimely filed, and Petitioner has failed to establish a
basis for equitable tolling, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Factual Background
As alleged in the petition3, Petitioner stated that she received the first HPV
vaccination on September 20, 2018, when she was twenty-three years old, the second
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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
3 Petitioner has not filed any medical records to establish the vaccinations or her injuries. I will assume
the accuracy of the facts in the petition to resolve the motion to dismiss.

Case 1:24-vv-01462-UNJ Document 12 Filed 04/08/25 Page 2 of 5
vaccination on March 21, 2019, and the third vaccination on September 23, 2019. ECF
No. 1. Within six months of the September 23, 2019 vaccination (i.e., by April 2020),
Petitioner stated she developed onset of extreme allergies, rapid heart rate, fatigue,
abnormal perspiration without exercise, joint stiffness, abnormal menstruation, muscle
fatigue, and weight gain. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Petitioner was diagnosed with chronic fatigue
later in 2020. Id. ¶ 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 almost five years after her last HPV dose, which was administered in 2019, and over
four years after she began manifesting symptoms in April 2020. But Petitioner maintains
her delay is excusable. Thus, in an affidavit dated September 15, 2024, Petitioner has
attested that, at the time these vaccinations occurred, no Vaccine Information Statements
(VIS) were provided and no information was relayed about the Vaccine Program. Exhibit
1 ¶ 4. Petitioner only learned that the HPV vaccine might be capable of causing adverse
effects or that she had a legal remedy in July 2023. Exhibit 3 ¶ 6.
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. 6.
On September 24, 2024, Respondent submitted a brief arguing for dismissal due
to untimeliness.4 ECF No. 7. Respondent maintained that Petitioner in fact had not
diligently pursued her rights before filing a vaccine claim in 2024. 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 of the statute.
On December 19, 2024, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 10. Petitioner did not
dispute that the onset of symptoms occurred more than three years before the petition
was filed in 2024, 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
4 In a motion to strike, Petitioner opposed Respondent filing his brief before Petitioner had an opportunity
to file her own. ECF No. 8. As detailed in the order denying the motion to strike, while procedurally
atypical, Respondent’s early filing of his brief did not harm Petitioner. ECF No. 9.
2

Case 1:24-vv-01462-UNJ Document 12 Filed 04/08/25 Page 3 of 5
perfidious conduct of the vaccine manufacturer in fraudulently concealing the HPV
vaccine’s harmful character from the public. ECF No. 10 at 20. 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.
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 1:24-vv-01462-UNJ Document 12 Filed 04/08/25 Page 4 of 5
A) Diligent pursuit
Petitioner was twenty-three years old when she received the first HPV vaccination.
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 July 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. 10 at 20. 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 2018 or 2019, 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.
4

Case 1:24-vv-01462-UNJ Document 12 Filed 04/08/25 Page 5 of 5
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.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
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