LISA D. HAMILTON-FIELDMAN, Special Master.
This is an action by Gene and Kari McSherry ("Petitioners") seeking an award under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (hereinafter "Program").
Lydia McSherry was born on May 7, 1990. Pet'r's Ex. 1 at 2, ECF No. 12-2. Ms. McSherry, who has Down syndrome, experienced menarche
On March 28, 2007, however, Ms. McSherry attested that she had experienced irregular menstruation since menarche. Id. at 80-81.
Of particular note, on September 25, 2010, Ms. McSherry reported that her last period had occurred over four months beforehand. Id. at 51. About one year later, she informed her doctor that she had menstruated only once in the previous year. Id. at 47.
On March 28, 2012, Ms. McSherry again notified her physician that she had not menstruated within the past year. Pet'r's Ex. 3 at 32, ECF No. 12-4. The physician's "impression" was "secondary amenorrhea." Id. at 32. Two days later, tests revealed that Ms. McSherry had postmenopausal levels of Estradiol and FSH. Id. at 35-36.
On April 12, 2012, a physician, using the results of a Comprehensive Metabolic Panel, diagnosed Ms. McSherry with primary ovarian insufficiency ("POI").
On February 27, 2014, Petitioners filed the present action alleging that the Human Papillomavirus vaccinations ("Gardasil" or "HPV" vaccines) administered to Lydia McSherry on March 28 and June 13, 2007, and September 10, 2008, caused her to suffer from POI. Pet., ECF No. 1.
This case was identified for inclusion with other POI cases in an "omnibus proceeding" established to address the question of what constitutes the first symptom or manifestation of POI. See Pet'r's Status Report (Oct. 1, 2014), Culligan, ECF No. 23. The answer to this question is integral to the undersigned's determination of whether each petitioner had filed her claim within the statute of limitations. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(2) (2012) (requiring that petitions be filed prior to "the expiration of 36 months after the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset . . . of injury").
The lead case in the proceeding was Culligan.
At a Culligan status conference held on September 23, 2014, the undersigned discussed with the parties the necessity of establishing the date that the statute of limitations began to run in Culligan and other cases alleging an injury of POI caused by Gardasil in order to assess the timeliness of the claims. See Scheduling Order (Sept. 25, 2014) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 22. The undersigned directed the petitioner in Culligan's counsel, Mark Krueger, who is also counsel in the instant case, to begin the process of identifying other POI claimants for inclusion in an omnibus proceeding focused on the question of timeliness.
On October 1, 2014, Mr. Krueger filed a status report in which he identified eight POI cases
Another status conference was held on November 20, 2014, during which the parties agreed that "in all pending [POI] cases . . . an expert hearing [would] be held to address the question of what constitutes `the first symptom or manifestation of [POI] onset recognized as such by the medical profession at large.'" Scheduling Order (Nov. 24, 2014) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 26 (citing Cloer v. Sec'y of HHS, 654 F.3d 1322, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc)). The undersigned explained that a timeliness determination would be made on the basis of the evidence presented at the Culligan hearing; similar hearings would not be conducted in the other POI cases, all of which would trail Culligan for purposes of timeliness determinations. Id. The undersigned also added four additional POI cases
The parties and the undersigned proceeded to identify questions for the experts (to be researched and answered before the hearing) regarding the nature and timing of the first symptom or manifestation of onset of POI in the aforementioned cases. See, e.g., Order (Feb. 18, 2015) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 37; Scheduling Order (Jan. 30, 2015) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 36; Pet'r's Status Report (Dec. 29, 2014) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 31; Scheduling Order (Nov. 24, 2014) at 2, Culligan; Resp't's Status Report (Oct. 28, 2014) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 24. The parties and their experts ultimately agreed that, except in Culligan, in which the entire medical record would be considered by the experts, the experts would "offer opinions regarding the onset issues in the trailing cases by considering the facts of those cases as hypotheticals." Joint Status Report (Jan. 20, 2015) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 33. To facilitate this process, Petitioner filed summaries of the facts of all twelve POI cases. See Pet'r's Ex. 9, Culligan, ECF No. 34-2.
At a status conference held on January 28, 2015, the undersigned set deadlines for the parties' expert reports regarding timeliness. See Order (Jan. 30, 2015) at 2, Culligan. The experts were directed to address all of the identified timeliness questions separately, "on a question-by-question basis." Id. at 1.
On February 19 and March 3, 2015, three additional cases,
On March 12, March 13, and April 29, 2015, Petitioner filed expert reports and supporting medical literature, all of which were purportedly limited to the issue of timeliness. See Pet'r's Ex. 13, Culligan, ECF Nos. 47-2 to 51-6; Pet'r's Ex. 15, Culligan, ECF Nos. 53-1 to 54-3; Pet'r's Ex. 17, Culligan.
The undersigned convened a status conference on April 1, 2015, after having reviewed Petitioner's expert reports. See Scheduling Order (Apr. 2, 2015) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 55. The undersigned noted that, "notwithstanding the fact that Petitioner's onset experts have now reviewed the medical records associated with every [POI] case, Respondent's onset expert(s) will review only the cases' factual summaries, the Culligan record, and Respondent's list of hypothetical questions." Id. Also, having expressed some concern about the extent to which Petitioner's expert reports reflected an understanding of the relevant question regarding timeliness, the undersigned reiterated the following:
Id. (full citation omitted).
Respondent then filed an expert report regarding timeliness, as well as relevant medical literature, on May 8, May 28, and June 1, 2015. Resp't's Ex. A to A.32, Culligan, ECF Nos. 57-1 to 59-6, 63-1 to 63-3, 66-1 to 67-4. Respondent's expert report was authored by Dr. David Frankfurter. Resp't's Ex. A at 6, Culligan.
At a status conference held on May 14, 2015, Respondent confirmed that, in preparing his expert report, Dr. Frankfurter had reviewed only the factual summaries submitted by Petitioner (and the medical record from Culligan). See Order (May 15, 2015) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 61. Mr. Krueger agreed that, notwithstanding the fact that his experts had reviewed all of the medical records in all of the POI cases, "his experts would be referring to the factual summaries rather than to the medical records themselves" at the timeliness hearing. Id.
The parties filed their pre-hearing briefs simultaneously on June 1, 2015, see Pet'r's Prehearing Submissions, Culligan, ECF No. 65; Resp't's Prehearing Submissions, Culligan, ECF No. 69; and the hearing took place on June 16 and 17, 2015, see Minute Entry (June 18, 2015), Culligan. Petitioner's experts, Drs. Gersh and Hamiel, and Respondent's expert, Dr. Frankfurter, testified. Tr. at 4, 255, Culligan, ECF Nos. 81, 83.
On July 1, 2015, the undersigned issued an order identifying nine POI cases
On August 28, 2015, Respondent filed a status report in which she stated that she did not intend to contest the undersigned's preliminary findings in any of the presumptively timely cases filed by Mr. Krueger. Resp't's Status Report (Aug. 28, 2015) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 84. In status reports filed on September 2 and 30, 2015, Petitioner argued that all of the preliminarily precluded cases were, in fact, timely. See Pet'r's Status Report (Sept. 2, 2015) at 2-7, Culligan, ECF No. 85 (addressing Culligan, Chenowith, Garner, Lee, Lydia McSherry, and Madelyne Meylor); Pet'r's Status Report (Sept. 30, 2015) at 1-2, Culligan, ECF No. 87 (addressing Fishkis, Meghan McSherry, Stone).
At a status conference held on October 13, 2015, the undersigned "informed the parties that, for purposes of an onset determination, the [POI] cases [would] be divided [into] two groups: petitioners who never menstruated . . . and the rest of the [POI] petitioners." See Scheduling Order (Oct. 14, 2015) at 1, Culligan, ECF No. 88.
Relevant post-hearing briefing
Section 300aa-16(a)(2) of the Vaccine Act provides that, regarding
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(2).
This statute of limitations is not triggered by the administration of the vaccine, but "begins to run on the date of occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset of the vaccine-related injury for which compensation is sought." Cloer, 654 F.3d at 1335. "[E]ither a `symptom' or a `manifestation of onset' can trigger the running of the statute [of limitations], whichever is first." Markovich v. Sec'y of HHS, 477 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
"[I]t is the first symptom or manifestation of an alleged vaccine injury, not first date when diagnosis would be possible, that triggers the statute of limitations." Carson ex rel. Carson v. Sec'y of HHS, 727 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013), reh'g & reh'g en banc denied, 2013 WL 4528833 at *1. "A symptom may be indicative of a variety of conditions or ailments, and it may be difficult for lay persons to appreciate the medical significance of a symptom with regard to a particular injury." Markovich, 477 F.3d at 1357. While the symptom of an injury must be recognized as such "by the medical profession at large," Cloer, 654 F.3d at 1335, even subtle symptoms that a petitioner would recognize "`only with the benefit of hindsight, after a doctor makes a definitive diagnosis of injury,'" trigger the running of the statute of limitations, whether or not the petitioner or even multiple medical providers understood their significance at the time. Carson, 727 F.3d at 1369-70 (quoting Markovich, 477 F.3d at 1358).
There is no explicit or implied discovery rule under the Vaccine Act. Cloer, 654 F.3d at 1337. The date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset of the alleged vaccine-related injury "does not depend on when a petitioner knew or reasonably should have known anything adverse about her condition." Id. at 1339. Nor does it depend on when a petitioner knew or should have known of a potential connection between an injury and a vaccine. Id. at 1338 ("Congress made the deliberate choice to trigger the Vaccine Act statute of limitations from the date of occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of the injury for which relief is sought, an event that does not depend on the knowledge of a petitioner as to the cause of an injury."); see Markovich, 477 F.3d at 1358 ("Congress intended the limitation period to commence to run prior to the time a petitioner has actual knowledge that the vaccine recipient suffered from an injury that could result in a viable cause of action under the Vaccine Act." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Primary ovarian insufficiency can begin abruptly, see Tr. at 69; see also Nelson at 2-3; but it may also develop over several years, see Tr. at 70, 198-99, 398; see also Nelson at 2-3; Pet'r's Ex. 17, Tab 50 at 2 (Paolo Beck-Peccaz & Luca Persam, Premature Ovarian Failure, 1 Orphanet J. Rare Diseases, at 2 (Apr. 2006)) (hereinafter "Beck-Peccaz"). Thus, a woman could have symptoms of POI for several years before actually ceasing menstruation or being diagnosed with POI. See Tr. at 70, 198-99, 398; see also Tr. at 319; Nelson at 2-3; Beck-Peccaz at 2. The experts agreed that the symptoms of primary ovarian insufficiency include menstrual irregularities, including primary and secondary amenorrhea,
By instead finding that "normal" menstrual irregularity is a symptom for purposes of the Act's statute of limitations, Petitioner argues, the undersigned will somehow increase Petitioner's burden of proof. See Pet'r's Post Hr'g Reply Br. at 1-2. The undersigned does not agree. The undersigned does agree, however, that to qualify as the first symptom or manifestation of onset under the Act, a condition must be a symptom of something amiss, however subtle; it cannot be "normal": a symptom is "[a]ny morbid phenomenon or departure from the normal in structure, function, or sensation, experienced by the patient and indicative of disease." Symptom, Stedman's Medical Dictionary (28th Ed. 2013) (hereinafter "Stedman's") (emphasis added); accord Markovich, 477 F.3d at 1360 (observing that eye blinking episodes constituting first symptom of child's seizure disorder "were not normal child behavior"). In order to determine the date of the first symptom or manifestation of onset of the vaccine-related injury, therefore, a method for separating "normal" menstrual irregularities from abnormal symptoms of POI is necessary.
Fortunately, medical literature provided by the parties provides a solution, both simple and elegant. See Resp't's Ex. A.2, ECF No. 57-4 (Comm. on Adolescent Health Care, Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Menstruation in Girls and Adolescents: Using the Menstrual Cycle as a Vital Sign, Comm. Op. No. 349 (Nov. 2006)) (hereinafter "ACOG Opinion" or "ACOG Op."); see also Pet'r's Ex. 15, Tab 4. In Cloer and Markovich, the Federal Circuit directed that "the symptom or manifestation of onset must be recognized as such by the medical profession at large." Cloer, 654 F.3d at 1335; Markovich, 477 F.3d at 1360. The ACOG Opinion is an opinion from the Committee on Adolescent Healthcare at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, together with the American Academy of Pediatrics, entitled "Menstruation in Girls and Adolescents: Using the Menstrual Cycle as a Vital Sign." See ACOG Op. It was issued in November 2006, and "Reaffirmed" in 2009. ACOG Op. at 1. The abstract of the ACOG Opinion provides:
Id. The article goes on to discuss a number of articles and robust epidemiological studies concerning what constitutes "normal menstrual cycles in young females," including age at menarche, and "cycle length and ovulation," id. at 2-3; "abnormal menstrual cycles," including "prolonged interval[s]," id. at 3-4; and "excessive menstrual flow," id. at 4. The article concludes with a chart, reproduced below, that together with one difference applicable to women older than 18, provides comprehensive guidance to the "medical profession at large" about when menstrual irregularities have exceeded "normal" variation to become symptoms of a potential problem. Id. at 4-5. The chart is as follows:
Menstrual periods that:
Id. at 5.
Hillard reproduces this chart, accompanied with this caution:
Hillard at 8 (emphasis added).
There cannot be a better vehicle for the undersigned to use to sort out "normal" from "symptom" than one designed for that purpose by members of the medical profession themselves. Thus, the undersigned finds that for petitioners who were eighteen years old or younger at the time the condition arose, if the condition qualifies for evaluation on the ACOG chart, it constitutes a symptom for purposes of the Vaccine Act. For petitioners who were over eighteen years old at the time the condition arose, the chart also applies, except that periods that should be evaluated include those that occur more frequently than every 21 days or less frequently than every 34 days. See ACOG Op. at 3.
Finally, as to contraceptives' impact on this analysis, Hillard specifically limited her discussion "only to bleeding on young women who are not taking any hormonal therapy such as birth control." Hillard at 6. All of the experts at the hearing agreed that hormonal therapy would mask POI symptoms. Tr. at 115, 161, 387-88. The ACOG Opinion recommends blood collection for screening before hormonal treatment is begun, ACOG Op. at 4, as did Doctors Hamiel, Tr. at 95-97, and Frankfurter, Tr. at 377, at the hearing; although, both experts acknowledged that such testing is often not performed before hormonal treatment is started. Tr. at 95-97, 112-13, 387-92.
Based on that information, the undersigned makes the following findings regarding how contraceptive use will inform the undersigned's findings on onset for purposes of the statute of limitations:
Petitioners filed their petition on February 27, 2014. By extension, the petition is time-barred if "the first symptom or manifestation of onset" of her alleged vaccine injury, POI, occurred before February 27, 2011. Drs. Hersh and Hamiel argue that the irregularity of Ms. McSherry's menstruation alone is not a reliable means to determine the first symptom of POI. Pet'r's Ex. 13 at 8, Culligan, ECF No. 47-1; Pet'r's Ex. 15 at 10, Culligan, ECF No. 53-1. Instead, they posit that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until Ms. McSherry's irregularity reached the level of amenorrhea. Pet'r's Ex. 13 at 8, Culligan; Pet'r's Ex. 15 at 10, Culligan. Neither expert cites medical literature in support of this conclusory assertion, which is directly refuted by the findings of the ACOG Opinion.
The undersigned finds that the first symptom of Ms. McSherry's POI occurred no later than September 25, 2010, when she reported that she had not menstruated in over four months. See Pet'r's Ex. 4 at 51.
In addition, a diagnosis of POI can be obtained after four months of amenorrhea—a fact on which both experts agree; and here, the undersigned finds that the four month lack of menstruation that Ms. McSherry reported constituted the first symptom of POI. That Ms. McSherry was not officially diagnosed with amenorrhea after four months is irrelevant. Even accepting Petitioners' claim that only amenorrhea can constitute a symptom of POI, Petitioners' claim would still be barred by the statute of limitations, as amenorrhea occurred in 2010 when Ms. McSherry reported four months without menstruation.
In sum, the undersigned finds that the gap between menstrual periods noted in Ms. McSherry's September 25, 2010 medical visit constituted symptomatic menstrual irregularity. Accordingly, the gap was the first symptom of her allegedly vaccine-caused injury, POI.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the undersigned finds that the first symptom of Ms. McSherry's injury was September 2010. Because that date precedes the statute of limitations deadline by five months, the undersigned concludes that Petitioners' claim is time-barred. Their petition therefore must be, and is hereby,
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.
