Brooke Rivera v. HHS - chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (2023)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Brooke Rivera, as the parent of A.E.C., a minor, filed a petition on September 16, 2022, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that A.E.C. received several vaccines on December 2, 2019, which resulted in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.
The respondent is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On April 28, 2023, the petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove A.E.C. was entitled to compensation.
The petitioner understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her, ending her rights in the Vaccine Program. The court noted that to be entitled to compensation, a petitioner must demonstrate a Table Injury or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine, but the petitioner affirmatively represented she could not meet the evidentiary standards.
Consequently, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the petition for insufficient proof and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
The public decision does not describe the specific vaccines administered, the petitioner's counsel, the respondent's counsel, the specific onset of symptoms, any medical tests performed, treatments received, or the specific mechanism of injury. The decision was originally filed on May 2, 2023.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Brooke Rivera, on behalf of minor A.E.C., alleged that vaccines received on December 2, 2019, resulted in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. The petitioner later moved to dismiss the petition, affirmatively representing that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated an inability to prove entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, either through a Table Injury or actual causation by the vaccine. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran dismissed the petition for insufficient proof. The public text does not specify the vaccines, the petitioner's counsel (Amber Diane Wilson), the respondent's counsel (Kyle Edward Pozza), the specific mechanism of injury, or any expert testimony. The outcome was a dismissal with judgment entered against the petitioner.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01310