Dionni De La Cruz v. HHS - Influenza, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (2018)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On October 2, 2018, Dionni De La Cruz, proceeding pro se, filed a second petition alleging that a trivalent influenza vaccine she received on October 2, 2015, caused her Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). She also alleged significant aggravation in the alternative.
This petition followed a prior case, civil number 17-783V, filed on June 12, 2017, for the same vaccine administration and alleged injury, in which Ms. De La Cruz was represented by counsel.
In the first case, Ms. De La Cruz filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition on January 23, 2018, stating she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation and that further proceedings would be unreasonable and wasteful.
The Special Master granted this motion, and the case was dismissed, with judgment entered on February 14, 2018. In the second petition, Ms.
De La Cruz again alleged that the flu vaccine administered on October 2, 2015, caused her GBS. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, represented by Heather L.
Pearlman. The Special Master, Laura D.
Millman, dismissed the second petition based on 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(b)(2) of the Vaccine Act, which states that only one petition may be filed with respect to each administration of a vaccine. The Special Master noted that Ms.
De La Cruz had previously filed a petition for the same vaccine administration and injury. The deadline for the respondent to file a Rule 4(c) Report was canceled, and the petition was dismissed.
Judgment was directed to be entered. The public decision was reissued for publication on December 3, 2018, with the original filing date of October 5, 2018.
The petitioner was represented by Dionni De La Cruz pro se.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Dionni De La Cruz alleged that a trivalent influenza vaccine administered on October 2, 2015, caused her Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) or significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition. This was the second petition filed for the same vaccine administration and alleged injury; the first petition (Case No. 17-783V) was dismissed on January 23, 2018, upon petitioner's motion, as she stated she could not prove entitlement to compensation. The second petition, filed on October 2, 2018, was dismissed by Special Master Laura D. Millman because the Vaccine Act (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(b)(2)) permits only one petition per vaccine administration. The public decision does not describe the specific medical onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation. No experts were named in the public decision. The case was dismissed without an award due to the statutory prohibition against filing multiple petitions for the same vaccine administration. Petitioner was represented pro se, and respondent was represented by Heather L. Pearlman.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01528