Phillips v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-1044
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- Ivana Phillips was born December 18, 2008; her brother received an MMR vaccine December 31, 2008, and petitioners allege Ivana developed measles/encephalopathy in January 2009 from exposure and thereafter suffered developmental injuries.
- Petition for Vaccine Act compensation (on behalf of Ivana) was filed August 23, 2016—well over 36 months after January 2009.
- Petitioners acknowledged the delay and asked the special master to "extend the deadline" (i.e., equitably toll the 36‑month statute of limitations), citing lack of knowledge of the Vaccine Program and reassurances from doctors that vaccination was not the cause.
- The special master found Ivana’s first symptoms manifested in January 2009 and dismissed the petition as untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑16(a)(2).
- The special master declined to equitably toll the limitations period, relying principally on Cloer and related precedent that ignorance of the Vaccine Act or delayed discovery of causation does not alone justify tolling.
- The Court of Federal Claims reviewed the special master’s factual findings deferentially and legal conclusions de novo, and sustained the dismissal and denial of equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa‑16(a)(2) | Petition was timely because petitioners were unaware of the Vaccine Program and causal link until later | Petition filed >36 months after first symptoms (Jan 2009); therefore untimely | Court sustained special master: petition untimely—first symptoms predate the filing by >36 months |
| Equitable tolling of the 36‑month period | Toll the limitations period due to ignorance of the Program and doctors’ reassurances | Cloer and other precedent: ignorance of the law or delayed discovery of causation is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting tolling | Court denied equitable tolling; special master correctly applied Cloer and related precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Cloer v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (Vaccine Act contains a symptom‑based limitations rule and equitable tolling is available only in extraordinary circumstances)
- Munne v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (different standards of review for special master findings: factual, legal, discretionary)
- Lampe v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 219 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (arbitrary and capricious standard for review of factual findings)
- Avera v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (de novo review for legal questions)
- Carson ex rel. Carson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 727 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming deference to special master’s findings on symptom onset)