Adrianna McKeage v. HHS - HPV, dysautonomia (2025)

Adrianna McKeage filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 25, 2024, alleging she suffered various injuries, including dysautonomia, from human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations received on July 25, 2011, October 4, 2011, and April 3, 2018. Petitioner alleged that within ten weeks of the October 4, 2011 vaccination, she experienced symptoms such as rapid heart rate, chest pains, dizziness, headaches, lightheadedness, and intolerance to heat, and was later diagnosed with dysautonomia.

Petitioner stated that at the time of vaccination, no one discussed possible adverse side effects, no Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) was provided, and no information about the Vaccine Program was relayed. She claimed she only learned about the Vaccine Program in April 2023.

The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the petition was filed outside the Vaccine Act's 36-month statute of limitations. Petitioner acknowledged the untimeliness but argued for equitable tolling, asserting she diligently pursued her rights once she realized the connection between her injuries and the HPV vaccine and became aware of the Vaccine Program.

She also alleged fraudulent conduct by the vaccine manufacturer and that the failure to provide a VIS constituted an extraordinary circumstance. Chief Special Master Brian H.

Corcoran reviewed the case. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish both elements required for equitable tolling: diligent pursuit of her rights and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing.

The decision 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 them to be significant. The court also stated that unawareness of the Vaccine Program or the failure to provide a VIS does not support equitable tolling.

Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative, unsupported by evidence, and not a basis for tolling. Consequently, the court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, ruling the case was untimely filed.

No compensation was awarded. The decision was issued on June 18, 2025.

Petitioner was represented by Bijan Esfandiari of Wisner Baum LLP, and respondent was represented by Heather L. Pearlman of the U.S.

Department of Justice.