Catherine Mistele v. HHS - HPV, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) (2025)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On October 3, 2024, Catherine Mistele filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, J.M., alleging that J.M. suffered injuries from a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination received on October 20, 2020. The petition stated that J.M. experienced severe fatigue and syncope after the vaccination and was later diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).
The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The case was dismissed because the petition was filed outside the Vaccine Act's 36-month statute of limitations.
Petitioner argued for equitable tolling, claiming she was unaware of the Vaccine Program and that the vaccine manufacturer engaged in fraudulent conduct. The court found that the statute of limitations begins to run from the manifestation of symptoms, not from when the claimant learns of a potential cause of action or legal remedy.
The court also determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate diligent pursuit of her rights or the existence of extraordinary circumstances that would justify equitable tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct and the failure to provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) were deemed insufficient to toll the statute of limitations.
The public decision does not describe the specific clinical story beyond the initial symptoms and diagnosis, nor does it name petitioner's counsel or respondent's counsel beyond their affiliations. Chief Special Master Brian H.
Corcoran issued the decision. The case was dismissed as untimely filed.
Theory of causation
Petitioner alleged that J.M. received an HPV vaccination on October 20, 2020, and subsequently experienced severe fatigue and syncope, leading to a diagnosis of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). The petition was filed on October 3, 2024, which was over four years after the vaccination and the manifestation of symptoms. Petitioner sought equitable tolling, arguing she was unaware of the Vaccine Program and that the vaccine manufacturer engaged in fraudulent conduct, and that a VIS was not provided. The Special Master found that the statute of limitations begins to run from the manifestation of symptoms, not from the claimant's awareness of a cause of action or legal remedy. The court determined that the petitioner did not diligently pursue her rights and that no extraordinary circumstances existed to justify tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct and failure to provide a VIS were found insufficient to toll the statute. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name any experts. The case was dismissed as untimely filed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on June 24, 2025. Petitioner's counsel was Bijan Esfandiari of Wisner Baum LLP, and respondent's counsel was Heather L. Pearlman of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01692