VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00865
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00865
Petitioner: Ana Rivera Rodriguez
Filed: 2021-02-04
Decided: 2024-09-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-02-09
Condition: acute myocardial infarction
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Ana Rivera Rodriguez filed a petition on February 4, 2021, alleging that the influenza vaccine she received on February 9, 2018, caused her to suffer an acute myocardial infarction. She submitted medical records, but faced challenges with illegible handwritten notes and records in Spanish, requiring transcriptions and translations. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report arguing that compensation should be denied due to the lack of a reputable expert opinion supporting the claim. Ms. Rodriguez initially agreed to work on obtaining expert reports but later decided not to hire an expert, citing difficulties in retaining one. She then consulted with other experts, but faced further delays. Ultimately, on August 2, 2024, Ms. Rodriguez moved to dismiss her case, stating that her investigation into the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove her entitlement to compensation. The court granted her motion, dismissing the case with prejudice for insufficient proof, as no expert report was provided to support the claim of vaccine causation.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00865-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-10
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/12/2024) regarding 83 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (ceo) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00865-UNJ Document 84 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ANA RIVERA RODRIGUEZ, * No. 21-865V
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Mor an
v. *
* Filed: August 12, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Roberto E. Ruiz-Comas, RC Legal and Litigation Services LLC, Guaynabo, PR for
petitioner;
Madelyn Weeks, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Anna Rivera Rodriguez alleged that the influenza vaccination she received
on February 9, 2018 caused her suffer from an acute myocardial infarction. Pet.,
filed Feb. 4, 2021. On August 2, 2024, Ms. Rodriguez moved for a decision
dismissing her petition.
I. Procedural History
Mr. Rodriguez filed a petition for compensation on February 4, 2021,
alleging that the flu vaccine she received on February 9, 2018 caused her to suffer
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case,
it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal
Claims’ website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in
accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal
Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will
be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), the
parties have 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure
of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the
document posted on the website.

Case 1:21-vv-00865-UNJ Document 84 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 4
from an acute myocardial infarction. Ms. Rodriguez filed various medical records.
During a status conference on November 4, 2021, it was noted that some of the
records were handwritten and some were in Spanish. See Order, issued Jan. 14,
2022. Ms. Rodriguez stated that she intended to file a transcription and an English
translation of the records. Id.
Ms. Rodriguez moved for authorization to issue a subpoena for a
transcription of one of the handwritten records on December 2, 2021. After she
filed this record, the Secretary noted that the record from Ms. Rodriguez’s
cardiologist Dr. Humberto Simonetti had illegible handwritten portions. See
Order, issued April 20, 2022; Exhibit 6. Ms. Rodriguez served a subpoena on Dr.
Simonetti, who resides in Puerto Rico, but he did not comply. Ms. Rodriguez
requested and was granted authorization to have the U.S. Marshall assist in
servicing the subpoena. Order, issued Oct. 25, 2022.
The parties worked over the next six months to arrange service of the
subpoena. See, e.g., Joint Status Rep., filed Mar. 16, 2023 and Apr. 26, 2023. Dr.
Simonetti was served on May 11, 2023. The transcription of the records was filed
as Exhibit 17 on July 6, 2023.
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report on September 11, 2024. Respondent
argued that compensation should be denied, as Ms. Rodriguez had not yet offered a
reputable and reliable expert opinion in support of her claim. The parties held a
status conference to discuss the report, and agreed to begin the process of filing
expert reports. Order, issued Oct. 4, 2023.
On November 29, 2023, Ms. Rodriguez filed a status report advising that she
had decided not to hire an expert. Ms. Rodriguez filed a Joint Stipulation for
Voluntary Dismissal on December 19, 2023. A status conference was held on
January 9, 2024 to discuss the case. Ms. Rodriguez explained that she was having
difficulties retaining an expert, but decided that she would like to consult a
different expert to determine whether she should continue to pursue her claim. A
deadline of 60 days was set for Ms. Rodriguez’s expert report.
Ms. Rodriguez consulted other experts; one agreed to write the report, but
required additional time due to his congested schedule. Ms. Rodriguez requested
and was granted an additional 60 days, until May 13, 2024, for her report. Order,
issued Mar. 11, 2024. Ms. Rodriguez then requested and was granted an extension
2

Case 1:21-vv-00865-UNJ Document 84 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 4
to the end of July for her report, as her expert notified her that he required
additional time. Order, issued May 13, 2024.
On July 31, 2024, Ms. Rodriguez requested a few additional days to
determine how to proceed. She reported that she had been unable to get in contact
with the expert, and now planned to consult a different expert to see if he could
provide a report. On August 2, Ms. Rodriguez moved to dismiss her case, stating
that an “investigation into the facts and science supporting her case has
demonstrated to [her] that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to
compensation in the Vaccine Program.”
II. Analysis
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-
11(c)(1). Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based
solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by
either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-
13(a)(1).
In this case, Ms. Rodriguez filed medical records to support her claim.
Nonetheless, Ms. Rodriguez wishes to have her claim dismissed and judgment
entered against her. Given Ms. Rodriguez’s clear intent that a judgment issue in
this case, the undersigned will construe this as a motion filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-21(b) (regarding involuntary dismissal).
To conform to § 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” Here, Ms. Rodriguez did not provide an expert report to
support her claim that the flu vaccine caused her acute myocardial infarction.
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of vaccine-causation.
Thus, the Motion for Decision is GRANTED and this case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly. See Vaccine Rule 21(b).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00865-UNJ Document 84 Filed 09/10/24 Page 4 of 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
4