Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutestatute of limitations
statutestatute of limitations

Related Cases

Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 955 P.2d 951, 266 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 19
View Case »
Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999
View Case »
Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc., 298 Conn. 414, 3 A.3d 919
View Case »
Truong v. Hassan, 829 F.3d 627
View Case »
Joe Dickerson & Associates, LLC v. Dittmar, 34 P.3d 995, 29 Media L. Rep. 2618
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Cloer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 654 F.3d 1322

Facts

Dr. Melissa Cloer, a physician, received three Hepatitis-B vaccinations in 1996 and 1997. She began experiencing symptoms consistent with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 1997, specifically numbness and Lhermitte's sign, which is recognized as a common symptom of MS. Despite these symptoms, she did not receive a formal diagnosis of MS until 2003. Cloer filed her claim for compensation under the Vaccine Program in September 2005, more than 36 months after her first symptom.

Dr. Melissa Cloer, a physician, received three Hepatitis-B vaccinations in 1996 and 1997. She began experiencing symptoms consistent with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 1997, specifically numbness and Lhermitte's sign, which is recognized as a common symptom of MS.

Issue

Did the statute of limitations for filing a claim under the Vaccine Act begin to run from the date of the first symptom of the injury, or from the date of a formal diagnosis of the injury?

Did the statute of limitations for filing a claim under the Vaccine Act begin to run from the date of the first symptom of the injury, or from the date of a formal diagnosis of the injury?

Rule

The statute of limitations under the Vaccine Act begins to run on the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset of the injury claimed, not from the date of a formal diagnosis.

The statute of limitations under the Vaccine Act begins to run on the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset of the injury claimed, not from the date of a formal diagnosis.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Dr. Cloer's first symptom of MS, recognized as such at the time, occurred more than 36 months before she filed her petition. The court rejected her argument that the statute of limitations should not begin until a clinically definite diagnosis was made, emphasizing that the law requires the limitations period to commence upon the first recognizable symptom, regardless of the timing of a formal diagnosis.

The court applied the rule by determining that Dr. Cloer's first symptom of MS, recognized as such at the time, occurred more than 36 months before she filed her petition.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of Dr. Cloer's claim as untimely, holding that the statute of limitations had expired based on the date of her first symptom.

The court affirmed the dismissal of Dr. Cloer's claim as untimely, holding that the statute of limitations had expired based on the date of her first symptom.

Who won?

The Secretary of Health and Human Services prevailed in the case because the court found that Dr. Cloer's claim was time-barred under the Vaccine Act's statute of limitations.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services prevailed in the case because the court found that Dr. Cloer's claim was time-barred under the Vaccine Act's statute of limitations.

You must be