Phillips v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-1045
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- Petitioners Aprises Phillips and Ivan Phillips, Sr. filed a Vaccine Act petition on behalf of their daughter Ivanka on August 23, 2016, alleging encephalopathy and developmental injury arising from Ivanka’s measles infection in May 2010 (allegedly contracted from her brother Ivan, who had MMR vaccines in 2008).
- Ivanka was born March 1, 2010; petitioners concede symptoms began in May 2010—over 36 months before the 2016 filing.
- Petitioners requested that the special master equitably toll the Vaccine Act’s 36‑month limitations period, asserting ignorance of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and reliance on pediatricians’ reassurances that vaccines were not the cause.
- The special master dismissed the petition as untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑16(a)(2) and declined to equitably toll the limitations period, relying principally on Cloer v. Sec’y of HHS.
- Petitioners moved for review; the Court of Federal Claims reviewed factual findings for arbitrariness and legal questions de novo and sustained the special master’s dismissal and denial of equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition was filed within the Vaccine Act’s 36‑month limitations period | Ivanka’s family sought tolling because they were unaware of the Program and causation during the first 36 months | Limitations period measured from first symptom; facts show onset in May 2010, so filing was untimely | Petition was untimely; factual finding of May 2010 onset is sustained |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to excuse untimely filing | Tolling warranted due to ignorance of the Program and misleading medical advice from pediatricians | Equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances; ignorance and physician reassurance are insufficient | Equitable tolling denied; Cloer controls and requires stringent, extraordinary circumstances |
| Proper standard of review for special master’s findings | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Factual findings reviewed for arbitrariness; legal questions reviewed de novo; court applied those standards and affirmed |
| Whether delayed discovery of vaccine causation creates a discovery rule for §300aa‑16(a)(2) | Petitioners urged that delayed discovery should extend filing time | Defendant relied on statute and Cloer rejecting a discovery rule for the Vaccine Act | Court followed Cloer: no discovery rule; limitations are symptom‑keyed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cloer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 654 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (rejects a discovery rule under the Vaccine Act and constrains equitable tolling to extraordinary circumstances)
- Munn v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services, 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (describes standards of review for special master decisions)
- Lampe v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 219 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (discusses deference to factual findings of special masters)
- Avera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Carson ex rel. Carson v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 727 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirms deferential review of special master findings on symptom onset)
- Saunders v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 25 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (addresses standards for review of special master rulings)