VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01754
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01754
Petitioner: Kari Morey
Filed: 2024-06-18
Decided: 2025-07-15
Vaccine: HPV
Vaccination date: 2019-07-11
Condition: high blood pressure readings and abnormal liver enzyme tests results, chest pain and palpitations, headaches and migraines, rapid heart rate, high blood pressure when standing, dizziness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, abdominal pain, digestive issues, insomnia, tremors, difficulty with memory and concentration, pain, and tingling and numbness in her legs, arms, neck
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Kari Morey, a 29-year-old adult, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 25, 2024. She alleged that she suffered various injuries from three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations received on January 10, 2019, March 11, 2019, and July 11, 2019. Ms. Morey stated that within a few months of the last vaccination, she began experiencing high blood pressure readings and abnormal liver enzyme test results. She reported going to the emergency room in January 2020 for chest pain and palpitations, and also experienced headaches, migraines, rapid heart rate, high blood pressure when standing, dizziness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, abdominal pain, digestive issues, insomnia, tremors, difficulty with memory and concentration, pain, and tingling and numbness in her legs, arms, and neck. The petition was filed more than three years after her last vaccination and over four years after she began manifesting symptoms in January 2020. Ms. Morey argued for equitable tolling, asserting that she was not provided with a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at the time of vaccination and only learned about potential adverse effects of the HPV vaccine and the Vaccine Program in September 2023. She also alleged fraudulent conduct by the vaccine manufacturer. The respondent argued for dismissal due to untimeliness. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran ordered Ms. Morey to show cause why the claim had not been filed outside the Act's 36-month statute of limitations. In her response, Ms. Morey argued for equitable tolling, stating she had diligently pursued her rights once she realized the connection between her injuries and the vaccine and became aware of the Program. The court found that the petition was untimely filed and that Ms. Morey failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling. The court noted that the Vaccine Act does not have a discovery rule and that the statute of limitations begins to run from the manifestation of the first objectively cognizable symptom. The court also stated that the failure to be informed about the Vaccine Program or receive a VIS does not support equitable tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. The court referenced prior decisions where it has ruled that medical science does not predominantly support the contention that the HPV vaccine can cause various autonomic issues. Consequently, the case was dismissed for being untimely filed. Petitioner was represented by Bijan Esfandiari of Wisner Baum LLP, and the respondent was represented by Heather L. Pearlman of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kari Morey, age 29, received three HPV vaccinations on January 10, March 11, and July 11, 2019. She alleged onset of symptoms including high blood pressure, abnormal liver enzymes, chest pain, palpitations, headaches, rapid heart rate, dizziness, vision issues, abdominal pain, digestive issues, insomnia, tremors, memory and concentration difficulties, pain, and tingling/numbness in extremities within a few months of the last vaccination, with emergency room visit in January 2020. The petition was filed on October 25, 2024, which was untimely under the Vaccine Act's 36-month statute of limitations, which begins to run from the manifestation of the first objectively cognizable symptom. Petitioner argued for equitable tolling, citing lack of a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at vaccination and late discovery of potential adverse effects and the Vaccine Program in September 2023, as well as alleged fraudulent conduct by the manufacturer. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the case, finding Petitioner failed to establish diligent pursuit of rights or extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling. The court held that the Vaccine Act lacks a discovery rule, and failure to receive a VIS or be aware of the Program does not support tolling. Allegations of manufacturer misconduct were deemed speculative and not a basis for tolling. The decision referenced prior rulings that medical science does not predominantly support claims that the HPV vaccine causes autonomic issues. 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-01754-0
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-01754-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1754V
UNPUBLISHED
KARI MOREY,
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, Kari Morey filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered various injuries from human
papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccinations she received on January 10, 2019, March 11, 2019,
and July 11, 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 petition2, Petitioner stated that she received the HPV
vaccinations on January 10, 2019, March 11, 2019, and July 11, 2019, when she was
twenty-nine years old. ECF No. 1 at 2. Within “a few months” of the July 11, 2019 HPV
vaccination, Petitioner stated she began having high blood pressure readings and
abnormal liver enzyme tests results. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Petitioner went to the emergency
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-01754-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 2 of 6
room in January 2020 for chest pain and palpitations. Id. Petitioner also experienced
“headaches and migraines, rapid heart rate, high blood pressure when standing,
dizziness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, abdominal pain, digestive issues, insomnia,
tremors, difficulty with memory and concentration, pain, and tingling and numbness in
her legs, arms, neck.” Id
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 five years after her last HPV dose, which was administered in 2019, and over four
years after she began manifesting symptoms in January 2020, at the latest. But Petitioner
maintains her delay is excusable. Thus, in an affidavit dated October 25, 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 September 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 December 19, 2024, Petitioner filed a response. ECF No. 8. 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
perfidious conduct of the vaccine manufacturer in fraudulently concealing the HPV
vaccine’s harmful character from the public. ECF No. 8 at 5. 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
7.
2

Case 1:24-vv-01754-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 3 of 6
Respondent submitted a brief of his own, arguing for dismissal due to
untimeliness.3 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—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”).
3 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-01754-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 4 of 6
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 was twenty-nine years old when she received the HPV vaccinations.
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 September 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. 8 at 5. 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.
4

Case 1:24-vv-01754-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 5 of 6
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 2019,4 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.
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 29. 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.
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
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

Case 1:24-vv-01754-UNJ Document 10 Filed 07/15/25 Page 6 of 6
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6