In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-0231V

Filed: April 21, 2015 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

JEAN L. BUCK, * 

 * 

 Petitioners, * 

 v. * Statute of Limitations; 

 * Untimely Filing; Influenza Vaccine; 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Guillain Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Carol Gallagher, Esq., Linwood, NJ, for petitioner. 

Jennifer Reynaud, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master: 

 

 On March 6, 2015, petitioner filed a claim for compensation pursuant to the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [“Vaccine Program” or “the Program”].2 

Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain Barre Syndrome [“GBS”] that was causedin-fact by her influenza [“flu”] vaccination administered on November 26, 2010. Petition 

at ¶10. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit [“SPU”] of the Office of 

Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government 

Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). 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 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [“Vaccine Program” or “the Program”] is set forth in 

Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006) [“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. All citations in this 

Decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. 
2 

A telephonic status conference was held on March 31, 2015. Carol Gallagher 

appeared on behalf of petitioner, and Jennifer Reynaud appeared on behalf of 

respondent. 

Petitioner’s counsel indicated that after discussions with respondent’s counsel, 

and her own additional research, she has concluded that the Afluria vaccination 

petitioner received on November 26, 2010 is a trivalent influenza vaccination, and as 

such this claim filed on March 6, 2015 is outside the Vaccine’s Act’s statute of 

limitations. 42 U.S.C. § 300 aa-16(a)(2).3 Petitioner’s counsel indicated that petitioner 

does not intend to pursue her petition for compensation in this claim. 

On April 1, 2015 I ordered petitioner to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed as untimely filed by no later April 10, 2015. Petitioner did not respond to my 

Order. 

Petitioner has the burden to show timely filing. Petitioner concedes this claim 

was not filed within “36 months after the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or 

manifestation of onset or of the significant aggravation of such injury” as required by the 

Vaccine Act. § 16(a)(2). Thus, this claim is dismissed as untimely filed under the 

Vaccine Act’s statute of limitations. The clerk is directed to enter judgment 

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Denise K. Vowell 

 Denise K. Vowell 

 Chief Special Master 

 

3 The Vaccine Act provides that in the case of: 

a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table which is administered after October 1, 

1988, if a vaccine-related injury occurred as a result of the administration of such 

vaccine, no petition may be filed for compensation under the Program for such injury after 

the expiration of 36 months after the date of the occurrence of the first symptom or 

manifestation of onset or of the significant aggravation of such injury . . . . 

§ 16(a)(2).