Lori Hughes v. HHS - Influenza, Guillain-Barré syndrome (2019)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Lori Hughes filed a petition on October 9, 2018, alleging she developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 21, 2015. The petition stated that the information in the record did not show entitlement to an award.
On July 2, 2019, Ms. Hughes filed a motion to dismiss her petition, acknowledging that an investigation of the facts and science had demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation.
She understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her and would end all her rights in the Vaccine Program, but she intended to preserve her rights to file a civil action in the future by electing to reject the Vaccine Program judgment. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or an injury caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine.
The Special Master found that the record did not support a finding of a "Table injury" and did not contain persuasive evidence that the injury was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccination. The Special Master also noted that the Vaccine Act requires claims to be supported by medical records or a physician's opinion, and that neither was present to establish causation.
Therefore, the Special Master granted the petitioner's motion to dismiss for insufficient proof and entered judgment against the petitioner. The decision was issued by Special Master Thomas L.
Gowen.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Lori Hughes filed a petition on October 9, 2018, alleging Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after an influenza vaccine on October 21, 2015. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, the mechanism, or any expert testimony. The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on July 2, 2019, stating she could not prove entitlement to compensation, either as a "Table Injury" or an injury caused-in-fact by the vaccine. The medical records and lack of expert reports were insufficient to meet the burden of proof. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen granted the motion, dismissing the case for insufficient proof. Petitioner elected to reject the judgment to preserve rights to file a civil action. The decision was issued on July 29, 2019.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01554