VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00375
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00375
Petitioner: Amy Redford
Filed: 2019-09-25
Decided: 2020-10-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Amy Redford filed a petition alleging she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after receiving an influenza vaccine in December 2012. However, Ms. Redford later moved to dismiss her own petition, stating that insufficient evidence existed to demonstrate entitlement to compensation. Specifically, she acknowledged being unable to obtain any record confirming vaccine administration. Without this supporting documentation, Ms. Redford understood she would be unable to prove her entitlement to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove they received a covered vaccine and suffered either a Table Injury or an injury actually caused by a covered vaccine. In this case, the record lacked evidence that Ms. Redford received the alleged influenza vaccine or was injured by it. Consequently, her claim for compensation was denied and the case was dismissed for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00375-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-10-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/25/2020) regarding 31 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00375-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0375V
UNPUBLISHED
AMY REDFORD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 25, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
HUMAN SERVICES, Dismissing the Petition; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre
Respondent. Syndrome (GBS)
Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On March 12, 2019, Amy Redford filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) after
receiving an influenza vaccine in December 2012. Petition at 1.
On August 5, 2020, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition,
acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to
compensation. ECF No. 30.3 Petitioner acknowledged in her motion that she “was unable
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
3 Although Petitioner filed her motion using the CM/ECF event for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Vaccine
Rule 21(a), it is clear that Petitioner intended to file a motion to dismiss which would result in a judgement.
The title of her motion is “Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing Petition.” Furthermore, in the motion,
Petitioner acknowledges that her request will result in a decision (as opposed to an order concluding
proceedings) and later judgement which she can reject to preserve any future civil claim.

Case 1:19-vv-00375-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 2
to obtain any record confirming vaccine administration.” Id. at ¶ 1. “Without this
supporting documentation, [P]etitioner understands that she will be unable to prove that
she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. Petitioner indicated that she
“understands that a decision against her by the Special Master dismissing her petition
will result in a judgement against her . . . [and] has been advised that such a judgment
will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at ¶ 3.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove that she
received a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program and then suffered either 1) a “Table
Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered
vaccine, or 2) an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A)
and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record shows there is no evidence that Petitioner
received an influenza vaccine in December 2012 as alleged.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical
records or by a medical opinion. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner received or
was injured by a vaccine covered by the Vaccine Program. For these reasons, and in
accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), Petitioner’s claim for compensation is DENIED and
this case is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2