Background
Laurence Chitlik alleged that he suffered an injury compensable under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 6, 2019. His petition therefore had to be filed by December 6, 2022. Proceeding without counsel, Chitlik mailed the petition by certified first-class mail from Cambridge, Maryland, to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on November 26, ten calendar days and eight Postal Service business days before the deadline. Although the Postal Service provided a five-business-day delivery commitment, the petition arrived and was filed one day late.
Chitlik sought equitable tolling, arguing that the Postal Service’s delay, allegedly caused or worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, prevented timely filing despite his diligence. A special master rejected tolling, finding both that Chitlik had not acted with reasonable diligence because he could have selected an expedited delivery service and that no extraordinary circumstance caused the delay. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed on diligence grounds, reasoning additionally that Chitlik should have monitored the tracking information and sent another petition by overnight delivery, and dismissed the petition without deciding whether extraordinary circumstances existed.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit reversed the determination that Chitlik lacked reasonable diligence. Equitable tolling requires reasonable diligence, not maximum feasible diligence, and must be assessed case by case. The special master legally erred by effectively treating use of a non-guaranteed mailing method as categorically insufficient. The Court of Federal Claims likewise demanded too much by requiring Chitlik to monitor tracking information and mail a parallel petition before there was a meaningful indication that the first would arrive late.
On the undisputed facts, the court held that Chitlik acted reasonably diligently by mailing the petition approximately 85 miles through an authorized filing method eight Postal Service business days before the deadline—three business days beyond the Postal Service’s stated delivery window. But the Federal Circuit did not hold that equitable tolling applied. It vacated the special master’s categorical conclusion that regular-mail delay could not constitute an extraordinary circumstance and remanded for the Court of Federal Claims to assess that issue under the correct, fact-specific standard.
On remand, the Court of Federal Claims must consider whether Chitlik waived any extraordinary-circumstance arguments not presented to the special master and whether any preserved circumstances, individually or together, were extraordinary, beyond his control, caused the late filing, and justify equitable tolling. The Federal Circuit left the trial court to decide whether the special master should address the matter.
Key Takeaways
- Mailing a filing through an authorized method without purchasing expedited service does not categorically defeat reasonable diligence for equitable-tolling purposes.
- Courts must evaluate diligence and extraordinary circumstances case by case, considering facts such as the mailing date, expected delivery time, distance, length of delay, and time remaining before the deadline.
- The Federal Circuit resolved only the diligence prong in Chitlik’s favor; whether he ultimately receives equitable tolling depends on the extraordinary-circumstances and waiver issues to be decided on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision rejects rigid delivery-method and tracking requirements that would transform reasonable diligence into maximum feasible diligence. For Vaccine Act litigants—particularly pro se petitioners—it confirms that relying on an authorized mailing method sufficiently ahead of a deadline can satisfy the diligence requirement even when an unexpected postal delay causes a late filing.
The ruling does not establish that ordinary mail delay always warrants equitable tolling. Instead, it requires courts to examine the particular circumstances and causation without categorical exclusions, while leaving petitioners responsible for proving both required elements of equitable tolling.