David Vazquez-Gonzalez v. HHS - Influenza, cranial neuropathies (2023)

David Vazquez-Gonzalez filed a claim on January 26, 2023, alleging that he suffered cranial neuropathies caused-in-fact by an influenza vaccine he received on February 14, 2019. He also alleged that the influenza vaccine significantly aggravated his depression, anxiety, and alcohol abuse disorder.

The respondent filed a Rule 4 report on June 24, 2022, recommending against compensation. Following the respondent's report, the petitioner was ordered to file an expert report supporting his claim.

After filing multiple motions for extensions of time, the petitioner was ultimately unable to secure an expert report. On January 25, 2023, the petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing his Petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science supporting his case demonstrated he would be unable to provide that he is entitled to compensation, and that proceeding further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the respondent, and the Vaccine Program.

The petitioner understood that a decision dismissing his petition would result in a judgment against him, ending all his rights in the Vaccine Program. To receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or an injury actually caused by a covered vaccine.

To prove causation in fact, a petitioner must show by preponderant evidence a medical theory connecting the vaccination and the injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship. The Vaccine Act prohibits ruling for a petitioner based solely on allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion.

The Special Master found that the petitioner's medical records did not support his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, and he did not file a medical opinion from an expert. Therefore, Special Master Daniel T.

Horner granted the petitioner's motion and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was entered accordingly.

Petitioner's counsel was Anne Toale of Maglio Christopher and Toale. Respondent's counsel was Felicia Langel of the U.S.

Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the specific onset or symptoms of the cranial neuropathies, nor does it detail any specific medical records, medical opinions, or expert testimony that were considered or presented.