Error: Bad annotation destination
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-5072
CHRISTOPHER G. WILEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent-Appellee.
Christopher G. Wiley, of Jackson, Louisiana, pro se.
Lynn E. Ricciardella, Trial Attorney, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With her
on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Timothy P. Garren,
Director; Vincent J. Matanoski, Acting Deputy Director; and Gabrielle M. Fielding,
Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge Marian Blank Horn
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-5072
CHRISTOPHER G. WILEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: January 10, 2007
__________________________
Before NEWMAN, RADER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Christopher G. Wiley appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of
Federal Claims, which affirmed the special master’s dismissal of Mr. Wiley’s petition for
compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”), 42
U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 19, 2005, Mr. Wiley submitted a number of documents to the clerk of
the Court of Federal Claims. Because of Mr. Wiley’s pro se status, these documents
were deemed to be a petition for compensation under the Vaccine Act. His petition was
assigned to a special master, who directed Mr. Wiley to: “(a) identify his injury; (b)
identify the vaccines that he believes caused his injury; (c) state the dates on which he
received the vaccines that he believes caused his injury; and (d) state the date on which
his injury began.” Mr. Wiley replied on September 8, 2005, alleging that he received “a
vaccine in [his] heart and not [his] arm,” that he was injured by smallpox and diphtheria-
pertussis-tetanus (“DPT”) vaccines, that these vaccines were given to him in 1971 and
1974, and that he was nine years old when he was injured by these vaccines.
On September 13, 2005, the special master dismissed Mr. Wiley’s petition as
untimely. Wiley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 05-0911V, slip op. (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Sept. 13, 2005). The Court of Federal Claims affirmed. Wiley v. United
States, 69 Fed. Cl. 733 (Fed. Cl. 2006). Mr. Wiley appeals the judgment of the Court of
Federal Claims.
DISCUSSION
The Vaccine Act provides that the Court of Federal Claims can set aside the
decision of a special master if that decision is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(B).
We review de novo the court’s determination as to whether the special master’s
decision was in accordance with the law. See Saunders v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 25 F.3d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
On appeal, Mr. Wiley argues that the court incorrectly held that his petition was
barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree. The relevant portion of the Vaccine
Act states that for vaccines administered before October 1, 1988, “no petition may be
filed for compensation . . . after the expiration of 28 months after October 1, 1988, and
2006-5072 2
no such petition may be filed if the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of the
significant aggravation of such injury occurred more than 36 months after the date of
administration of the vaccine.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(1). Mr. Wiley states that he
was given the vaccines that led to his alleged injury before October 1, 1988. Thus, he
needed to file his petition for compensation before February 1, 1991. Because he did
not file until August 19, 2005, the Court of Federal Claims properly affirmed the special
master’s dismissal of his petition.
Next, Mr. Wiley argues that the court failed to apply equitable tolling. Section
300aa-16(a)(1), however, is not subject to equitable tolling. Weddel v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 100 F.3d 929, 932 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, the court did not err in this
regard either.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims.
No costs.
2006-5072 3