VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00022
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00022
Petitioner: Eric Mateer
Filed: 2017-04-12
Decided: 2017-05-08
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: 
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Eric Mateer filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 6, 2016, alleging injury from a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish entitlement to an award. Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing his petition on April 5, 2017, acknowledging his inability to prove entitlement. To receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" corresponding to a vaccination or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury." Furthermore, the record lacked a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating that the injury was vaccine-caused. The Vaccine Act requires that a petition be supported by medical records or a competent physician's opinion. In this case, there were insufficient medical records, and no medical opinion was offered. Special Master George L. Hastings, Jr. determined that Petitioner failed to demonstrate either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was "actually caused" by a vaccination. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof on May 8, 2017. The public decision does not describe the specific vaccine, vaccination date, age at vaccination, specific condition, onset, symptoms, tests, treatments, petitioner counsel, respondent counsel, or the mechanism of injury.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Eric Mateer filed a petition alleging injury from a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Petitioner moved for dismissal, stating an inability to prove entitlement. The Special Master found insufficient proof because there was no evidence of a "Table Injury" and no medical expert opinion or other persuasive evidence demonstrating the injury was vaccine-caused. The Vaccine Act requires proof via medical records or a physician's opinion, neither of which was sufficiently provided. The case was dismissed for insufficient proof. The public text does not specify the vaccine, date, age, condition, symptoms, tests, treatments, or mechanism. Special Master George L. Hastings, Jr. issued the decision on May 8, 2017. Petitioner counsel and respondent counsel are not named in the public text.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00022-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-05-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/12/17) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Special Master George L. Hastings. (jtl) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00022-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-022V
Filed: April 12, 2017
Not to be Published
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
ERIC MATEER, *
*
Petitioner, * Petitioner’s Motion for a
* Decision Dismissing the Petition;
v. * Insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine
* Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DECISION
On January 6, 2016, Eric Mateer filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),1 alleging that he was injured
by a vaccine listed in the Vaccine Injury Table. See § 14. The information in the record,
however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
On April 5, 2017, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing his petition, acknowledging
that he will be unable to prove he is entitled to compensation in the Program.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of Petitioner’s vaccinations, or 2) that Petitioner suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of
the record did not uncover any evidence that Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the
record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating
that Petitioner’s injury was vaccine-caused.
1 The Program comprises 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. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter,
individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:16-vv-00022-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 2
Under the Act, the 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, because there are
insufficient medical records supporting Petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in
support. Petitioner, however, has offered no such opinion.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate either that Petitioner suffered a “Table Injury” or that Petitioner’s injury was
“actually caused” by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The
Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/George L. Hastings, Jr.
George L. Hastings, Jr.
Special Master