VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01752
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01752
Petitioner: Adrianna McKeage
Filed: 2025-06-18
Decided: 2025-07-15
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 
Condition: dysautonomia
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
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 July 15, 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.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Adrianna McKeage, vaccinated with HPV on July 25, 2011, October 4, 2011, and April 3, 2018, alleged injury including dysautonomia with onset of symptoms (rapid heart rate, chest pains, dizziness, headaches, lightheadedness, heat intolerance) within ten weeks of the October 4, 2011 vaccination. The petition was filed on October 25, 2024, which was outside the Vaccine Act's 36-month statute of limitations. Petitioner sought equitable tolling, arguing she only learned of the Vaccine Program in April 2023 and that the failure to provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) constituted an extraordinary circumstance. Respondent moved to dismiss for untimeliness. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran granted the motion, finding Petitioner failed to establish both diligent pursuit of rights and extraordinary circumstances. The court held that the Vaccine Act lacks a discovery rule, claims accrue upon symptom onset, and unawareness of the program or lack of a VIS does not support equitable tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. The case was dismissed as untimely filed. Petitioner was represented by Bijan Esfandiari (Wisner Baum LLP) and Respondent by Heather L. Pearlman (U.S. Department of Justice). Decision date: July 15, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01752-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-15
Pages: 5
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-01752-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1752V
UNPUBLISHED
ADRIANNA MCKEAGE,
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, Adrianna McKeage filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered various injuries from human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccinations she received on July 25, 2011, October 4, 2011, and
April 3, 2018. ECF No. 1 at 2.
Because the petition was untimely filed, and Petitioner has failed to establish a
basis for equitable tolling, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this case is
DISMISSED.
Relevant Factual Background
As alleged in the petition2, Petitioner stated that she received the HPV vaccinations
on July 25, 2011, October 4, 2011, and April 3, 2018. ECF No. 1 at 2. Within ten weeks
of the October 4, 2011 vaccination, Petitioner experienced rapid heart rate, chest pains,
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 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-01752-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 2 of 5
dizziness, headaches, lightheadedness, and intolerance to heat. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Petitioner
was later diagnosed with dysautonomia. Id. ¶ 6.
Facially, Petitioner’s claim herein was filed nearly six years after the most recent
HPV dose, which was administered in April 2018, and over twelve years from the time
she began manifesting symptoms around the beginning of 2012. But Petitioner maintains
her delay is excusable. Petitioner stated at the time these vaccinations occurred, no one
discussed the possible adverse side effects of the HPV vaccine, no Vaccine Information
Statement (VIS) was provided, and no information was relayed about the Vaccine
Program. Exhibit 1 ¶ 4. Petitioner stated that she only learned about the Vaccine Program
in April 2023. Exhibit 3 ¶ 8.
Relevant Procedural History
On December 3, 2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the claim
had been filed outside the Vaccine Act’s 36-month statute of limitations, Sec. 16(a)(2).
ECF No. 7. Respondent maintained that Petitioner 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 the statute of limitations.
On January 2, 2025, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 8. Petitioner did not
dispute the onset of symptoms in 2012, or that her petition was filed in 2024 (beyond the
statute of limitations deadline), 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 perfidious conduct of the vaccine manufacturer in fraudulently concealing
the HPV vaccine’s harmful character from the public. ECF No. 8 at 19. Relatedly,
Petitioner argued that the failure of a healthcare professional to provide her with a Vaccine
Information Statement 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 3.
Respondent did not file a reply to Petitioner’s response.
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
2

Case 1:24-vv-01752-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 3 of 5
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”).
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.
3

Case 1:24-vv-01752-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 4 of 5
A) Diligent pursuit
Petitioner was fourteen years old when she received the first two HPV vaccinations
in 2011 and was twenty years old when she received the third HPV vaccination in 2018.
Petitioner argues that she was impeded by the failure of the vaccine administrators to
provide her with a VIS or any other information about the Vaccine Program at the
vaccination appointments. Petitioner admits that she only learned of the Vaccine Program
in April 2023 and then began to diligently pursue her vaccine claim.
The argument about the vaccine administrators’ failure to provide a VIS or any
other information about the Vaccine Program is 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. 8 at 19. 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.3 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
3 The HPV vaccine was first added to the Table in 2007. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (Vaccine Injury Table);
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Addition of Meningococcal and Human Papillomavirus
(HPV) Vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table, 72 Fed. Reg. 19937 (Apr. 20, 2007).
4

Case 1:24-vv-01752-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 5 of 5
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 2011 or 2018, is an
extraordinary circumstance. Even assuming the factual accuracy of that allegation,4 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.
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
4 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 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