VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01547
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01547
Petitioner: Veronica Mendoza
Filed: 2021-07-06
Decided: 2022-09-02
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2018-07-18
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Veronica Mendoza filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 6, 2021, alleging she developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving Tdap, MMR, and varicella vaccinations on July 18, 2018. The vaccinations were administered in Juarez, Mexico, at a clinic approved by the U.S. Department of State. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical presentation, diagnostic tests, or treatments related to Ms. Mendoza's alleged GBS. Following an initial review, an order was issued on December 9, 2021, requiring Ms. Mendoza to provide evidence that the vaccines were manufactured in the United States, as required by the Vaccine Act for compensation for vaccines received outside the U.S. Ms. Mendoza received multiple extensions of time to obtain the necessary records. On August 4, 2022, Ms. Mendoza filed a motion for a decision dismissing her petition, stating that she was unable to obtain proof that the vaccines administered were manufactured in the United States. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran granted the motion, dismissing the case because Ms. Mendoza failed to establish entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act due to insufficient proof regarding the vaccine's U.S. manufacture. The public decision does not name petitioner counsel or respondent counsel. No award amount was granted as the case was dismissed.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Veronica Mendoza alleged Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following Tdap, MMR, and varicella vaccinations received on July 18, 2018, in Juarez, Mexico. The case was dismissed because Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Specifically, for vaccines administered outside the United States, the Vaccine Act requires proof that the vaccines were manufactured by a U.S. manufacturer. Petitioner conceded she was unable to obtain this proof. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, any medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. The case was dismissed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on September 2, 2022, with judgment entered accordingly. Petitioner counsel was Laura Levenberg of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent counsel was Heather L. Pearlman of the U.S. Department of Justice. No award was made.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01547-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-09-29
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 9/2/2022) regarding 19 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01547-UNJ Document 24 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1547V
UNPUBLISHED
VERONICA MENDOZA,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: September 2, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Motion for decision; Dismissal;
HUMAN SERVICES, Tdap Vaccine; MMR Vaccine;
Varicella vaccine; Guillain-Barré
Respondent. syndrome (“GBS”); vaccine received
outside United States
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On July 6, 2021, Veronica Mendoza filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34,2
(the “Vaccine Act”). Ms. Mendoza alleged that she developed Guillain-Barré syndrome
(“GBS”) after receiving Tdap, MMR, and varicella vaccinations on July 18, 2018. ECF
No. 1.
On August 4, 2022, Ms. Mendoza filed a motion for a decision dismissing the
petition. For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Mendoza’s motion is GRANTED, and this
case is DISMISSED.
In the petition, Ms. Mendoza alleged that she developed GBS after receiving the
three vaccinations on July 18, 2018, at Servicios Medicos de la Frontera, a “clinic
approved by the U.S. Department of State to treat Mexican citizens prior to their
1 Although I have not formally designated this Decision for publication, I am required to post it on the United
States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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), Petitioner has
14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute
an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this
definition, I will redact such material 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 “Sec.” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-01547-UNJ Document 24 Filed 09/29/22 Page 2 of 2
immigrant visa interview in Juarez, Mexico.” ECF No. 1; exhibit 7 ¶ 2 (affidavit). The
vaccination document indicated that Petitioner had received the three vaccinations on
the date alleged but did not contain any additional identifying information for the
vaccinations, such as manufacturer, brand name, lot number, etc. Exhibit 1.
After the initial review of the case, an order issued on December 9, 2021,
requiring Petitioner to, inter alia, provide additional evidence concerning the
manufacturer of the vaccines because the vaccines were administered outside the
United States. Sec. 11(c)(1)(B)(III) (for vaccines received outside the United States,
requiring that the “vaccine[s] [were] manufactured by a vaccine manufacturer located in
the United States”); ECF No. 8.
Ms. Mendoza received multiple extensions of time to pursue additional medical
records.
On August 4, 2022, Ms. Mendoza filed a motion for a decision dismissing the
petition stating that she is “unable to obtain proof that the vaccine administered was
manufactured in the United States.” ECF No. 17.
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program for vaccines administered outside the United States, a petitioner must prove
that the “vaccine[s] [were] manufactured by a vaccine manufacturer located in the
United States.” Sec. 11(c)(1)(B)(III). Ms. Mendoza established that she received the
vaccines at issue outside the United States, i.e., in Juarez, Mexico, but has conceded
that she cannot establish that the vaccines were manufactured by a vaccine
manufacturer located in the United States.
Thus, Petitioner has failed to establish entitlement to compensation in the
Vaccine Program. This case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, she must file a notice of election rejecting the judgment
pursuant to § 21(a) “not later than 90 days after the date of the court’s final judgment.”
2