C.R. v. HHS - Influenza, Type 1 diabetes (2016)

On September 25, 2015, Crystal Turner, represented by counsel Andrew Downing, filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, C.R., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP #2), pneumococcal conjugate (PCV #1), and influenza (flu) vaccinations administered on September 27, 2012, caused C.R. to suffer a severe adverse reaction, specifically Type 1 diabetes.

C.R. was born on June 9, 2010. The original petition identified only the influenza vaccination as allegedly causal, while an amended petition included all four vaccines received on that date.

According to the petitioner, C.R. had been an active child but became less active in October or early November 2012, exhibiting staring episodes. Between late December 2012 and January 2013, C.R. reportedly increased his drinking, became ill more often, and slept and cried excessively, leading to frequent urination.

In March 2013, after a friend suggested Type 1 diabetes, C.R.'s blood sugar was tested. Before the appointment, on March 27, 2013, C.R. was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis at Children's Hospital in New Orleans, with a blood sugar level of 912.

He was immediately placed on an IV and administered insulin. The case involved multiple procedural steps, including the filing of an amended petition and status conferences.

Mr. Downing moved to withdraw as counsel on June 3, 2016.

After a decision on interim attorney fees and costs, his motion to withdraw was granted on September 16, 2016, leaving Crystal Turner as a pro se litigant. She was ordered to contact the court to schedule a status conference by October 31, 2016.

Despite multiple attempts by the court to contact her via phone and email, including an Order to Show Cause issued on November 17, 2016, Ms. Turner failed to respond or comply with court orders.

Consequently, on December 16, 2016, Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests beyond blood sugar levels, or treatments beyond initial IV and insulin administration.

The specific mechanism of causation was not detailed in the public decision, nor were any expert witnesses named.