NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TIFFANY S. GAITER, ON BEHALF OF D. S. G., A 

MINOR,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-1784

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:17-vv-01040-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________

Decided: August 29, 2019

______________________

TIFFANY S. GAITER, Saginaw, MI, pro se. 

 HEATHER LYNN PEARLMAN, Vaccine/Torts Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

JOSEPH H. HUNT, C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, CATHARINE E.

REEVES. 

______________________
2 GAITER v. HHS

Before PROST, Chief Judge, PLAGER and O’MALLEY,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Tiffany S. Gaiter appeals from a decision of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing Ms. Gaiter’s claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“the Vaccine Act”). 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 300aa-1 to -34. The Claims Court concluded that it did 

not have jurisdiction to consider Ms. Gaiter’s Notice of Review under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(1)–(2) because it was 

not timely filed within thirty days of the Special Master’s 

decision. Because Ms. Gaiter’s claim would be dismissed 

regardless of whether § 300aa-12(e)(1)–(2) is a jurisdictional prescription, we affirm.

I

This appeal arises from Ms. Gaiter’s petition filed on 

August 2, 2017, on behalf of her minor son, D.S.G., pursuant to the Vaccine Act. Ms. Gaiter’s petition alleged that 

(a) a measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (“MMR”) D.S.G. received on May 22, 2002, caused him to develop an autism 

spectrum disorder; and (b) a second dose of MMR vaccine 

D.S.G. received on July 16, 2014, significantly aggravated 

his existing autism. Following briefing by both parties, on 

April 12, 2018, the Special Master issued a sealed order 

dismissing the portion of Ms. Gaiter’s claim pertaining to 

the 2002 vaccination. See Gaiter v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1040V, 2018 WL 3030961 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Apr. 12, 2018). The Special Master found that 

the 2002 claim was barred by the Vaccine Act’s statute of 

limitations, which limits claims to thirty-six months from 

the first symptom or manifestation of onset. Id. (citing 

§ 16(a)(2)). The Special Master then held a status conference with the parties on May 2, 2018 and subsequently ordered Ms. Gaiter to show cause why the remaining 2014 
GAITER v. HHS 3

claim should not be dismissed on the merits. Ms. Gaiter 

timely filed a response to that order on June 11, 2018.

Before Respondent replied and the Special Master 

reached its decision, on June 25, 2018, Ms. Gaiter filed a 

Notice of Appeal to this court at the Claims Court. Shortly 

thereafter, Respondent filed a response and then on July 6, 

2018, the Special Master issued its final decision, which 

dismissed the portion of the case related to the 2014 vaccination. Gaiter v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-

1040V, 2018 WL 3991229 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6, 

2018). In the absence of a notice of review under Vaccine 

Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims Rule

23, the Claims Court entered judgment dismissing the case 

on August 9, 2018. 

Meanwhile, on July 13, 2018, the Claims Court transmitted Ms. Gaiter’s Notice of Appeal to this court. On September 25, 2018, this court entered its order remanding the 

appeal because we lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits 

where the Claims Court had never reviewed the Special 

Master’s decision. This court ordered that the Claims 

Court “consider Ms. Gaiter’s June 25, 2018 submission as 

a request for review.” Gaiter v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., No. 2018-2172, 2018 WL 7051506, *2 (Fed. Cir. 

Sept. 25, 2018).

On remand, the Claims Court concluded that it did not 

have jurisdiction to review the Special Master’s decision in 

Ms. Gaiter’s case because her request was not timely made. 

Gaiter v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 142 Fed. Cl. 666, 

677–78 (2019). The Claims Court did not reach the merits 

of Ms. Gaiter’s case.

Ms. Gaiter appealed. We have jurisdiction under 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f).

II

On appeal, Ms. Gaiter does not argue that the Claims 

Court had jurisdiction to review the Special Master’s 
4 GAITER v. HHS

decision. Ms. Gaiter only includes arguments directed to 

the merits of her case. In particular, Ms. Gaiter argues 

that her 2002 claim is not barred by the statute of limitations because that claim should be equitably tolled due to 

fraud and that her 2014 claim demonstrates continued 

harm. See Appellant’s Br. 1–31; Reply Br. 1–2.2 

Ms. Gaiter’s claim of fraud is primarily based on an August 2014 letter written by Dr. William W. Thompson, 

which she argues proves that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) knowingly concealed information linking the MMR vaccine to autism in a sub-group 

of patients that includes D.S.G. (i.e., African American 

males under the age of thirty-six months). Appellant’s 

Br. 1–2; Reply Br. 6, 11, 14–15. Without citing any legal 

authority under the Vaccine Act, as “precedent” of fraud, 

Ms. Gaiter points us to a prior CDC study known as the 

Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Reply Br. 8–10 (citing 

https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm), 16–17. Ms. 

Gaiter states that she has never claimed that the MMR 

shot “gave” her son autism. Id. at 13. 

The government replies that the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction should be 

affirmed. Appellee’s Br. 9–14. The government argues 

that the statute makes clear that only a “decision” may be 

reviewed by the Claims Court and that the thirty-day appeal period commences “upon issuance of the special master’s decision.” Id. at 10. The government states that the 

Claims Court properly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Ms. Gaiter’s June 25, 2018 Notice of Review 

because at the time of the request there was no appealable

decision and because once the special master issued an 

 

1 Citations are made to Appellant’s informal brief 

dated June 6, 2019 and received June 17, 2019.

2 Citations are made to Appellant’s informal reply 

brief dated June 18, 2019 and received June 21, 2019.
GAITER v. HHS 5

appealable decision, Ms. Gaiter failed to move for review 

within thirty days of its issuance. Id. at 11.

The government also replies to Ms. Gaiter’s arguments 

on the merits. The government argues that the Special 

Master correctly determined that Ms. Gaiter’s 2002 claim 

is barred by the statute of limitations because the circumstances of this case do not warrant the extraordinary relief 

of equitable tolling. Appellee’s Br. 12 (citing Krenik v. Sec’y 

of the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No 03-2755V, 2014 

WL 4387219 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 25, 2014)). The government further states that the evidence Ms. Gaiter presented fails to demonstrate a causal relationship, as 

required by the statute, between MMR vaccine and autism. 

Appellee’s Br. 13–14. The government explains that the 

relationship between MMR vaccine and autism has been 

extensively litigated and rejected in thousands of Vaccine 

Act cases. Appellee’s Br. 13 n.6 (citing Snyder v. Sec’y of 

the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 01-162V, 2009 WL 

332044, at *4 n.12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 12, 2009), 

aff’d, 88 Fed. Cl. 706 (2009); see also id. (citing Cedillo v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 98-916V, 2009 WL 

331968 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 12, 2009); Hazelhurst v. 

Sec’y of the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-654V, 

2009 WL 332306 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 12, 2009), aff’d, 

88 Fed. Cl. 473 (2009), aff’d, 604 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 

2010)). Finally, the government argues that Ms. Gaiter 

failed to produce sufficient medical records to corroborate 

a vaccine-induced aggravation of D.S.G.’s autism related to 

the 2014 claim. Appellee’s Br. 14; see also Appellee’s Br.

84–86.

III

We review de novo a decision by the Claims Court

granting a motion to dismiss. Frankel v. United States, 842 

F.3d 1246, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Widdoss v. Sec’y of the 

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 989 F.2d 1170, 1174 

(Fed.Cir.1993). The Vaccine Act created the National 
6 GAITER v. HHS

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program through which 

claimants could seek compensation for vaccine-related injuries. When Congress passed the Vaccine Act, it established a statutory scheme to govern the procedure for cases 

brought under the Act. These statutes require specific procedural milestones to occur within set timelines.

This scheme requires that, after a petition is filed, the 

case be assigned to a special master for informal adjudication of the petition. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(3). The

special master’s decision may be reviewed by the Claims 

Court, but only if a party has filed a motion or notice requesting review of that decision. Id. at § 300aa-12(e)(1). 

Such a request must be filed with the clerk of the Claims 

Court within thirty days of the decision. Id.

If a request is made within thirty days, the Claims 

Court may review the special master’s decision and reach 

its own decision. Id. at § 300aa-12(e)(2). If, however, a request for review of the special master is not made within 

thirty days, the clerk of the Claims Court will enter judgment in accordance with the special master’s decision. Id. 

at § 300aa-12(e)(3). 

While this court has previously determined that the

thirty-day time period in which to file a motion for review 

of the special master’s decision is jurisdictional, Widdoss, 

989 F.2d at 1177 (“[T]he 30-day time period in which to file 

a motion for review under section 300aa-12(e)(1) is jurisdictional.”), the Supreme Court has more recently “stressed 

the distinction between jurisdictional prescriptions and 

nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules,” Fort Bend Cty, 

TX v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2019). In Fort Bend, 

the Court held that “Title VII’s charge-filing requirement 

is not of jurisdictional cast,” but rather is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule. Id. at 1850; see also id. at 

1849–50 (collecting examples of other such claim-processing rules, including Title VII’s time limit for filing a 

charge with the Equal Employee Opportunity 
GAITER v. HHS 7

Commission). 

We need not decide, however, whether § 300aa12(e)(1)–(2) is a jurisdictional prescription because, as explained below, we would affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal regardless. As the government contends, this record 

does not provide us a basis to review or remand this case. 

The central claim in Ms. Gaiter’s case is the 2002 claim and 

that claim is barred by the statute of limitations. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-16(a)(2); Gaiter, No. 17-1040V, 2018 WL 3030961 

at *2–3; see also Appellee’s Br. 38–39, 44–48; Gaiter, 142 

Fed. Cl. at 677 n.6. 

With respect to the 2014 claim, Ms. Gaiter has failed to 

produce sufficient medical records or other evidence to support her claim despite multiple requests from the Special 

Master to do so. Appellee’s Br. 49; see also id. at 29–30, 

84–85; Reply Br. Letter to the Special Master, *1 (dated 

January 30, 2018); Gaiter, 142 Fed. Cl. at 677 n.6. The record shows that throughout her case, the Special Master 

and Claims Court instructed Ms. Gaiter on the evidence 

that was required to support her case, and that the Special 

Master afforded Ms. Gaiter multiple opportunities to produce such evidence. Thus, while we agree that leniency 

should be extended to Ms. Gaiter as a pro se litigant, particularly where her request for review was filed too early, 

we do not find a basis for setting aside the judgment of the 

Claims Court on this record. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Claims Court’s 

judgment dismissing the case. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.