Jane Doe v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1769
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:13-vv-00471-PSH, Judge Philip S. Hadji.
______________________
Decided: December 9, 2025
______________________
J ANE D OE, Shreveport, LA, pro se.
BENJAMIN P ATRICK WARDER , Torts Branch, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by ALEXIS
B. BABCOCK, C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, HEATHER L YNN
P EARLMAN, BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before P ROST , CLEVENGER , and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1769 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

DOE v. HHS 2
P ER CURIAM .
Jane Doe1 filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Fed-
eral Claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensa-
tion Program, which was established by the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”).
Ms. Doe sought review of a special master’s decision
awarding her monetary damages. The Court of Federal
Claims dismissed Ms. Doe’s motion for review as untimely
filed and subsequently denied her motion for reconsidera-
tion. For the reasons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Doe filed a petition for compensation alleging that
her 2011 hepatitis A/B vaccination caused her to develop
multiple sclerosis (“MS”) or, in the alternative, signifi-
cantly aggravated her preexisting MS. On November 7,
2024, the special master found that Ms. Doe was entitled
to compensation for her injuries and awarded her monetary
damages. The Court of Federal Claims, having received no
motion for review within thirty days after the filing of the
special master’s decision, entered judgment on December
23, 2024. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(1), (3) (“In the ab-
sence of a motion [for review of] the special master’s deci-
sion . . . the clerk of the [Court of Federal Claims] shall
immediately enter judgment in accordance with the special
master’s decision.”); see also Vaccine Rule 11(a).
One week after judgment was entered, Ms. Doe filed a
motion for review, which the Court of Federal Claims dis-
missed as untimely. I.A. 8, 11.2 The court concluded that
1 In the underlying proceedings, the Court of Federal
Claims granted Ms. Doe’s motion to redact her full name
and used the “Jane Doe” pseudonym in its decision. We
will continue to use that pseudonym in this opinion.
2 “I.A.” refers to the informal appendix included with
Ms. Doe’s informal opening brief.
Case: 25-1769 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

DOE v. HHS 3
Ms. Doe’s motion was “time-barred and subject to dismis-
sal.” I.A. 11. The court also “discern[ed] no equitable con-
siderations which would excuse [Ms. Doe’s] delayed
motion,” and it thus determined that she “fail[ed] to meet
her burden for equitable tolling.” I.A. 10.
Ms. Doe sought reconsideration of the Court of Federal
Claims’ decision. I.A. 4. The court denied her motion for
similar reasons as its prior decision. I.A. 4–7.
Ms. Doe timely appealed. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
A petitioner is “entitled to equitable tolling only if [s]he
shows (1) that [s]he has been pursuing [her] rights dili-
gently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood
in [her] way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Flor-
ida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (cleaned up).
Ms. Doe challenges the Court of Federal Claims’ dis-
missal of her case and argues that the court should have
equitably tolled the thirty-day deadline. Even giving the
challenged decision de novo review, we reject the challenge.
For the reasons below, we affirm the court’s (1) dismissal
of her case as untimely; and (2) denial of her motion for re-
consideration.
Under the Vaccine Act, the special master’s decision
may be reviewed by the Court of Federal Claims, but only
if a party has filed a motion or notice requesting review of
that decision. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(1). If a request for
review is not made within thirty days, then the clerk of the
Court of Federal Claims “shall immediately enter judg-
ment in accordance with the special master’s decision.” Id.
§ 300aa-12(e)(3).
Here, there is no dispute that Ms. Doe filed her motion
for review after the thirty-day deadline. Ms. Doe also failed
to meet her burden for equitable tolling on the basis of her
Case: 25-1769 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

DOE v. HHS 4
alleged mental and physical impairments. Regarding her
alleged mental impairments, she failed to show that her
untimely motion “was the direct result of a mental illness
or disability that rendered her incapable of rational
thought, incapable of deliberate decision making, incapa-
ble of handling her own affairs, or unable to function in so-
ciety.” K. G. v. Sec’y of HHS, 951 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
2020). As to her alleged physical impairments, she has not
shown that these impairments rise to an extraordinary cir-
cumstance that warrants equitable tolling. As the Court of
Federal Claims determined, “it does not appear that
[Ms. Doe’s] MS prevented her from participating in pro-
ceedings before the [s]pecial [m]aster or from filing motions
on a short deadline” given the record shows she is “capable
of engaging in rational thought and deliberate decision
making.” I.A. 7. We see no reason to disturb the Court of
Federal Claims’ determination.
Thus, the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed
Ms. Doe’s motion for review because it was not timely filed
within the thirty-day deadline. We also see no reason on
this record to disturb the court’s denial of Ms. Doe’s motion
for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Doe’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1769 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 4 of 4 --