Cassie Ann Weddel v. HHS - DPT, other (1995)

Petitioners Jerry L. Weddel and Lea Ann Weddel filed a claim for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their daughter, Cassie Ann Weddel, alleging injury from a Diphtheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus (DPT) vaccine administered on August 4, 1986.

The initial petition was filed on September 12, 1990. This first petition was dismissed because the petitioners had a civil suit pending in Texas state court at the time of filing, as per 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(a)(5)(B).

Seven days after filing the federal claim, the petitioners had their state court suit dismissed without prejudice. The petitioners subsequently refiled their claim in the Court of Federal Claims on August 11, 1994.

Special Master Elizabeth E. Wright granted the respondent's motion to dismiss this second petition, finding it was filed after the statutory deadline of February 1, 1991, for pre-Act injuries, as established by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(1).

The petitioners argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled due to their initial filing. The respondent contended that the statute, being a statute of repose, was not subject to equitable tolling and, alternatively, that the petitioners' own neglect would prevent them from benefiting from equitable tolling even if it were applicable.

The special master agreed with the respondent, concluding that the statute is not subject to equitable tolling and that, in any event, the petitioners failed to demonstrate due diligence. The Court of Federal Claims reviewed the special master's decision, which involved questions of law reviewed de novo.

The court affirmed the special master's conclusion that 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(1) is a statute of repose and is not subject to equitable tolling. The court also upheld the special master's alternative finding that the petitioners failed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting their claim.

Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for untimeliness. The public decision does not describe the specific injury alleged, the onset of symptoms, any medical tests performed, treatments received, or the specific mechanism of injury.

The attorneys involved were not named in the public decision.