Callens v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that equitable tolling did not apply even where the filing of a Vaccine Act claim was \persistently thwarted by [allegedly] incorrect information from doctors\
• finding that equitable tolling did not apply even where the filing of a Vaccine Act claim was \persistently thwarted by [allegedly] incorrect information from doctors\
• finding that equitable tolling did not apply even where the filing of a Vaccine Act claim was \persistently thwarted by [allegedly] incorrect information from doctors\
• denying equitable relief where parents were not aware of the connection between their infant’s DPT vaccination and his subsequent developmental delay until after the limitations period had expired
• explaining that “[t]he fact on which a Vaccine Injury Table claim is based is the occurrence of an event recognizable as a sign of a vaccine injury by the medical profession at large, not the diagnosis that actually confirms such an injury in a specific ease.”
• following Brice and holding that a vaccine claim is based on “the occurrence of an event recognizable as a sign of a vaccine injury by the medical profession at large, not the diagnosis that actually confirms such an injury in a specific case” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).