VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01751
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01751
Petitioner: John Morris
Filed: 2025-06-18
Decided: 2025-07-15
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2015-01-05
Condition: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
John Morris filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered injuries from three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations received on January 5, 2015, March 17, 2015, and July 30, 2015. He claimed that within days and weeks of the first vaccination, he experienced chest pain, anxiety, panic, insomnia, fatigue, migraine headaches, erectile dysfunction, lightheadedness, brain fog, short-term memory deficits, difficulty standing, and sensitivity to light. He was later diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The court dismissed the case because the petition was filed over nine years after the vaccinations and symptom onset, exceeding the 36-month statute of limitations. Mr. Morris argued for equitable tolling, claiming he was unaware of the Vaccine Program and that the manufacturer engaged in fraudulent concealment. However, the court found these arguments unpersuasive. The court reiterated that the Vaccine Act does not have a discovery rule and that lack of awareness of the program or alleged manufacturer misconduct does not support equitable tolling. The court noted that Mr. Morris had not provided evidence of the vaccinations or his injuries, and that claims of corporate misconduct were speculative and not a basis for tolling. Ultimately, the court concluded that Mr. Morris failed to establish both diligent pursuit of his rights and extraordinary circumstances, leading to the dismissal of his untimely filed petition.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01751-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-15
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/18/2025) regarding 9 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-01751-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1751V
UNPUBLISHED
JOHN MORRIS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: June 18, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bijan Esfandiari, Wisner Baum, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On October 25, 2024, John Morris filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 342
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered various injuries from human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccinations he received on January 5, 2015, March 17, 2015,
and July 30, 2015. 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 he received HPV vaccinations on
January 5, 2015, March 17, 2015, and July 30, 2015. ECF No. 1 at 2. In the days and
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 his injuries. I will assume the
accuracy of the facts in the petition to resolve the statute of limitations issue.

Case 1:24-vv-01751-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 2 of 6
weeks after the January 5, 2015 HPV vaccination, Petitioner stated that he experienced
“chest pain, anxiety, panic, and insomnia.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Within two weeks of the
vaccination, he experienced “fatigue, migraine headaches, erectile dysfunction,
lightheadedness, brain fog, short-term memory deficits, difficulty standing, and
sensitivity to light.” Id. Petitioner was later diagnosed with postural orthostatic
tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Id. ¶ 9.
Petitioner alleged the preceding medical history in the petition and repeated the
history in his response to the order to show cause. Facially, Petitioner’s claim herein was
filed over nine years after the HPV vaccinations, which were administered in 2015, and
over nine years from the time he began manifesting symptoms in 2015. But Petitioner
maintains his delay is excusable. Petitioner has stated that, at the time these vaccinations
occurred, no Vaccine Information Statements (VIS) were provided and no information
was relayed about the Vaccine Program. Petitioner stated that he became aware that the
HPV vaccine could have potential adverse effect in March 2023.
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,”4 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 August 9, 2024, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 8. Petitioner did not
dispute that his symptoms begin in 2015, or that his petition was filed in 2024 (and not
sooner than the statute of limitations deadline of 2018), but instead argued that the
limitations period should be equitably tolled. Petitioner asserted that he had diligently
pursued his rights once he became aware of his legal rights. 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 6. Relatedly, Petitioner argued that the failure of a healthcare
professional to provide him 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
explained and provided to all vaccine recipients. Id. at 8.
4 Pre-Assignment Review, or PAR, is a process utilized by the Office of Special Masters to assess
whether a claim’s primary evidentiary documentation has been filed. See notice at
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters.
2

Case 1:24-vv-01751-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 3 of 6
Respondent submitted a brief of his own, arguing for dismissal due to
untimeliness.5 ECF No. 7. Respondent maintained that Petitioner in fact had not diligently
pursued his 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.
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 as a basis for equitable tolling—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
5 Respondent filed his “response” to Petitioner’s arguments before Petitioner had submitted his filing with
those arguments. For context, this case is part on ongoing series of vaccine cases (over 50 at this point)
that were filed beyond the statute of limitations deadline and have all presented the same legal
arguments regarding the equitable tolling of that deadline. Since Respondent has standardized his
response to these legal arguments, Respondent has chosen in some cases to file his response before
Petitioner files a response to the order to show cause. As I ruled in other cases where the petitioner
objected to Respondent’s early filing of his response, I understand Respondent to have waived any right
to later reply to Petitioner’s response (if it happened to contain arguments not anticipated by Respondent)
and find that Petitioner was not prejudiced or harmed by Respondent’s deviation from the standard
sequence of responsive filings.
3

Case 1:24-vv-01751-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 4 of 6
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 argues that he began to diligently pursue his claim when he learned of
the possibility of adverse effects from vaccines in March 2023.
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.
4

Case 1:24-vv-01751-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 5 of 6
ECF No. 8 at 6. 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 2015, is an
extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation,6 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.
Finally, Petitioner also asserts that the safety of the HPV vaccine is “heavily
disputed and should not be resolved on these papers alone.” ECF No. 8 at 31. But this
argument willfully ignores the extent to which I have personally ruled in numerous prior
cases that medical science does not preponderantly support the contention that the HPV
vaccine can cause various autonomic issues. See, e.g., Hughes v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 16-930V, 2021 WL 839092, at *31 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2021), mot.
for review denied, 154 Fed. Cl. 640 (2021); E.S. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
17-480V, 2020 WL 9076620, at *40, 43 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 13, 2020), mot. for
review denied, 154 Fed. Cl. 149 (2021); McKown v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
15-1451V, 2019 WL 4072113, at *44–45 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2019). The Act
does not require that the same theory rejected so many times before must be relitigated
by the Program ad infinitum (especially in the absence of new compelling evidence).
Rather, special masters are expressly empowered to rely on their expertise, earned in
adjudicating Program cases, in subsequent similar matters. To suggest that they should
ignore what they have learned in that process reveals a complete miscomprehension of
the Program’s underlying goals and purposes.
6 As noted above, Petitioner has not filed any medical records, let alone the vaccination records, that would
permit a factual evaluation of whether a VIS was provided to Petitioner at any of the vaccination
appointments.
5

Case 1:24-vv-01751-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 6 of 6
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.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7 If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, he 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