{"package_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_95-vv-00835","decision_granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_95-vv-00835-cl6646109","petitioner_identifier":"Joseph Tilghman Brice","is_minor":null,"age_at_vaccination":null,"age_unit_raw":null,"vaccine_type":"MMR","vaccination_date":"1992-04-30","condition_raw":"residual seizure disorder and brain damage","condition_category":"seizure_disorder","autism_spectrum_adjacent":1,"outcome":"unclear","award_amount_usd":null,"decision_date":"1996-09-06","extraction_version":"gemini-v2","extracted_at":"2026-04-30T14:10:17.316601+00:00","number_of_concurrent_vaccines":1,"dose_number":null,"time_to_onset_days":9,"theory_of_causation":"Petitioners alleged that Joseph Tilghman Brice suffered a residual seizure disorder and brain damage following an MMR vaccination on April 30, 1992. The first symptom, seizures, occurred on May 9, 1992, within the 15-day window for residual seizure disorder under the Vaccine Injury Table. The petition was filed on December 19, 1995, more than 36 months after the first seizure. The Special Master dismissed the petition as time-barred. The court remanded, holding that the Special Master erred by not considering equitable tolling, which may apply if petitioners did not and reasonably could not have known of Tilghman's residual seizure disorder or encephalopathy until years after the first symptom. The court found that the Vaccine Act's statutory language and legislative history support the application of equitable tolling, consistent with the Act's goals of providing quick, easy, and generous compensation. The case was remanded for the Special Master to determine if equitable tolling should apply.","is_death":0,"date_of_death":null,"petition_filed_date":"1995-12-19","case_summary":"Joseph Tilghman Brice, a minor, and his parents, Laurajean Councill Brice and Joseph Osier Brice, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. They alleged that Tilghman suffered injuries, specifically a residual seizure disorder and brain damage affecting his speech and behavior patterns, as a result of a Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccination administered on April 30, 1992. Nine days later, on May 9, 1992, Tilghman experienced seizures and was hospitalized. His parents stated that Tilghman's early development was within the normal range, and they only became aware of the possibility of permanent injuries in September 1994 when he began preschool. A formal diagnosis of residual seizure disorder and brain damage occurred in March 1995. After unsuccessful attempts to secure legal representation, the parents filed the petition pro se on December 19, 1995. This filing occurred approximately nine months after the diagnosis and over three years and seven months after the first seizure. The Special Master dismissed the petition, ruling it was barred by the 36-month statute of limitations, which the Special Master determined began to run on May 9, 1992, the date of the first seizure. The petitioners argued that the statute of limitations should not have commenced on that date because they did not know, and reasonably could not have known, that Tilghman suffered from encephalopathy or a residual seizure disorder until years later. The court reviewed the Special Master's decision and found that the Special Master erred by not considering the doctrine of equitable tolling. The court noted that the statute of limitations begins to run upon the first symptom or manifestation of an injury, regardless of the petitioner's knowledge of the injury's nature or its connection to the vaccine. However, the court held that equitable tolling, which can pause the running of the statute of limitations under certain circumstances, could potentially apply. The court reasoned that the Vaccine Act's goals of providing quick, easy, and generous compensation are consistent with allowing equitable tolling, particularly when petitioners did not and could not have known of the facts upon which their claim is based. The court remanded the case to the Special Master for further consideration of whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled, requiring the Special Master to make factual findings on this issue. The court directed the Special Master to file a response on or before December 5, 1996.","is_minor_inferred":1,"is_pediatric_broad":1,"special_master":null,"petitioner_identifier_original":null,"caption_petitioner_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_firm":null,"petitioner_attorney_location":null,"adjudicator_name":null,"caption_people_backfilled_at":null,"attorney_canonical_keys":null,"firm_canonical_key":null,"package_title":"Brice v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services","canonical_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_95-vv-00835","plain_text_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_95-vv-00835.txt","json_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_95-vv-00835.json","source_documents":[{"granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_95-vv-00835-cl6646109","title":"Brice v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services","docket_text":"lead-opinion","date_issued":"1996-09-06","pdf_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6763367/brice-v-secretary-of-the-department-of-health-human-services/","pdf_bytes":null,"triage_decision":"keep","triage_reason":"recovered via CL opinion 6646109 (html_with_citations)","download_status":"ok","registry_pdf_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_95-vv-00835/USCOURTS-cofc-1_95-vv-00835-cl6646109"}]}