VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00221
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00221
Petitioner: Maria Herrera
Filed: 2018-02-13
Decided: 2019-04-09
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-18
Condition: Guillain-Barre syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Maria Herrera filed a petition on February 13, 2018, alleging that she suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 18, 2016. The case progressed as an off-Table claim, as the medical records were insufficient to prove a Table Injury, and Herrera did not provide a supportive expert opinion. On March 4, 2019, Herrera filed a Motion to Dismiss her own petition, stating that an investigation demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The court found the record lacked persuasive evidence that the flu vaccine caused her alleged injury and that the medical records were insufficient to prove her claim. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The Special Master was Herbrina Sanders. The decision was issued on April 9, 2019. Petitioner appeared pro se, and Respondent was represented by Lisa Ann Watts. The public decision does not describe the onset, symptoms, specific medical tests, or treatments related to Ms. Herrera's condition, nor does it name any medical experts.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Maria Herrera alleged Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) following an influenza vaccine on October 18, 2016. The case was treated as an off-Table claim. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 4, 2019, conceding inability to prove entitlement. The Special Master, Herbrina Sanders, found the record lacked persuasive evidence of causation and that medical records were insufficient to prove the claim. No expert opinions were filed by the petitioner. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof on April 9, 2019. Petitioner appeared pro se; Respondent was represented by Lisa Ann Watts.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00221-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-04-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/6/2019) regarding 20 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (fm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00221-UNJ Document 22 Filed 04/09/19 Page 1 of 2
REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION
APR 9 2019
OSM
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates '!Court of jfe beral <!!aims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: March 6, 2019
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MARIA HERRERA, * No. 18-221V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
*
V, *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof; influenza
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * ("flu") vaccine; Guillain-Barre syndrome
* ("GBS").
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maria Herrera, pro se, Moorpark, CA.
Lisa Ann Watts, United States Depaitment of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION'
On February 13, 2018, Maria Herrera (''Petitioner") filed a petition pursuant to the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Program").2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10
to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that she suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome ("GBS") as a
result of the influenza ("flu") vaccine she received on October 18, 2016. Pet., ECF No. 1. The
information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
On March 4, 2019, Petitioner submitted a Motion to Dismiss her petition. ECF No. 19.
In her Motion, Petitioner conceded that "[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting
her case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to
compensation in the Vaccine Program." Id. at 1.
1 This decision shall be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance
with the &Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as
amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with
access to the Internet. As provided by Vaccine Rule l 8(b ), each party has 14 days within which to
request redaction "of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or
financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files,
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy." Vaccine Rule 18(b).
Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted
decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements
of that provision, such material will be withheld from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all "§" references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:18-vv-00221-UNJ Document 22 Filed 04/09/19 Page 2 of 2
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that she
suffered a "Table Injury"- i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table-corresponding
to the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See
§§ 13(a)(l)(A), 1 l(c)(l). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that
Petitioner suffered a "Table Injury." Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence
that Petitioner's alleged injury was caused by the flu vaccine.
Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims
alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent
physician. § 13(a)(l). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner's
claim, and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, this
case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in
accordance herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
2