VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01900
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01900
Petitioner: Rebecca Joan Miller
Filed: 2020-12-18
Decided: 2023-07-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-19
Condition: SIRVA in her left shoulder
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Rebecca Joan Miller filed a claim alleging that she suffered Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) in her left shoulder as a result of her October 19, 2019 influenza vaccination. Her claim was initially considered a Table Injury. However, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report recommending against compensation. A prior decision dismissed her Table claim, finding that the onset of her shoulder pain did not occur within the requisite forty-eight hours of vaccination. The court then ordered petitioner to file an expert report to support a cause-in-fact claim. On June 23, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition, stating that she was unable to retain an expert to support her case after discussions with experts and review of the prior finding of fact regarding onset. The court granted the motion and dismissed the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to compensation, as petitioner's medical records did not support her allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and she did not file a supporting medical opinion.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01900-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-02
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/29/2022) regarding 30 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1900V
UNPUBLISHED
REBECCA JOAN MILLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 29, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Onset and Statutory
HUMAN SERVICES, Six Month Requirement; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1
On December 18, 2020, Rebecca Joan Miller 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 a left shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine she received on
October 21, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters, and Respondent has contested Petitioner’s success in
meeting the Table elements of a SIRVA-based claim.
1 Because this unpublished Fact Ruling 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 Fact Ruling 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 8
Although I find that Petitioner has more likely than not suffered the residual effects
of her alleged vaccine-related injury for more than six months, Petitioner’s Table SIRVA
claim must still be dismissed because the evidentiary record does not support the
conclusion that her pain onset occurred within 48 hours following administration of the flu
vaccine. This leaves a possibly-meritorious causation-in-fact claim to be adjudicated.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On November 5, 2021, about 11 months after the case was initiated, Respondent
filed a Rule 4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner had not established entitlement to
compensation. ECF No. 19. Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot establish that the
onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours after her flu vaccination. Rule 4
Report at 8. Respondent also argues that Petitioner cannot establish that she suffered
the residual effects of her injury for more than six months as required by the Vaccine Act.
Rule 4 Report at 9.3
After a brief period of negotiation, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Factual Ruling
(“Mot.”) on April 29, 2022. ECF No. 27. Respondent filed Respondent’s Brief (“Resp.”) on
the same day. ECF No. 28.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Factual History
Petitioner was an 18-year-old college volleyball player when she received an
influenza vaccination in her left arm on October 21, 2019. Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 9 at ¶3. Petitioner
stated that she felt “discomfort” “immediately after receipt of the influenza vaccine.” Ex. 9
at ¶3. Although she continued to experience “pain and very limited range of motion,” she
continued to play volleyball with her college team for the remainder of the season,
explaining that she did not want to lose her starting position on the team. Ex. 10 at ¶6-7.
Petitioner’s last volleyball game of the season was on November 7, 2019. Ex. 10 at ¶7;
Respondent’s Ex. 1.
On November 11, 2019, Petitioner visited her athletic trainer complaining of left
shoulder soreness. Ex. 8 at 16. The trainer, Ms. Pizer, recorded the injury date as
November 7, 2019. Id. at 15. She returned to Ms. Pizer on November 18, 2019, and was
referred to a doctor for evaluation. Id. at 16. A “Student & Sports Accident Claim Form”
completed the same day noted that Petitioner “got a flu shot and then played a match for
W. Volleyball. While she was playing she experienced pain in her left shoulder that is still
going on today.” Ex. 2 at 5. Petitioner reported left shoulder pain for two weeks and pain
3 Respondent further argues that Petitioner’s injury may have been caused by a volleyball injury, however,
that issue was not briefed and is not decided here. Rule 4(c) Report at 9.
2

Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/02/23 Page 3 of 8
with activities of daily living (“ADLs”). Id. at 6. The physician noted normal, but painful,
active range of motion and referred Petitioner to physical therapy. Id.
The following day, November 19, 2019, Petitioner presented to physical therapy
for an initial evaluation. Ex. 3 at 187. Petitioner reported that she “began having L shoulder
pain a few weeks ago” after “getting a flu shot shortly before and thinks that may have
correlated the pain.” Id. at 189 (emphasis added). Petitioner also stated that she “was
also playing volleyball so thought it was just soreness from that.” Id. The physical therapist
recorded the onset date as November 7, 2019. Id. at 187. On exam, Petitioner had rotator
cuff weakness, and decreased active and passive range of motion. Id. at 190.
Petitioner returned to her university physician on December 2, 2019. Ex. 2 at 8. He
noted continued pain with ADLs and positive impingement testing, and prescribed
ibuprofen and continued physical therapy. Id. A little more than two weeks later, on
December 19, 2019, Petitioner presented to an orthopedist, Dr. Mounif Rifka, for
evaluation of her left shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 22. Petitioner reported shoulder pain for two
months “after she received a flu shot in that shoulder.” Id. Dr. Rifka reviewed Petitioner’s
MRI and noted that her exam and MRI were “consistent with tearing of the teres minor.”
Id. at 23. He recommended rehab for six weeks and non-steroidal medication. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Rifka on February 20, 2020. Id. at 16. Dr. Rifka noted that
Petitioner was “doing significantly better after completing physical therapy.” Id. at 17. He
stated that she “should continue to do a home exercise program but can return to
volleyball.” Id. He emphasized that Petitioner should start slowly and work her way back
to full participation. Id.
Petitioner continued physical therapy through March 4, 2020, a total of 20
sessions. Ex. 8 at 28. The note from that visit indicated a plan to transition to a home
exercise program in the next two to three weeks. Id. at 29. She was discharged from
physical therapy on March 10, 2020. Id. at 15. At discharge, Petitioner had met all of her
physical therapy goals except returning to full volleyball activity without pain. Id. On exam,
Petitioner was pain free and had full range of motion, but continued to have “minor
scapular winging with resistance.” Id. Petitioner stated that, at the time of her discharge
from PT, she still had weakness in her left shoulder, but she was unable to continue formal
physical therapy due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Ex. 10 at ¶10.
On March 23, 2020, Petitioner was required to move out of her dorm room because
her university shut down during the pandemic. Ex. 10 at ¶10. Petitioner recalled that she
was not able to carry boxes during the move due to her shoulder injury, a fact recalled by
her boyfriend as well. Id.; See also Ex. 12 at ¶6. Once she had moved home, Petitioner
continued to do her home exercise program from physical therapy. Ex. 10 at ¶11; Ex. 11
at 5. Petitioner’s mother also recalled that Petitioner had planned to continue physical
3

Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/02/23 Page 4 of 8
therapy, but was unable to because of strict Covid-19 restrictions, and favored her non-
injured arm when completely household and personal tasks. Ex. 11 at ¶5.
On April 27, 2020, Ms. Pizer, the university athletic trainer, closed out Petitioner’s
shoulder injury in the relevant records. Ex. 8 at 15.
III. Applicable Legal Standards
The Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects or
complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
Act §11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion.
§13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Section 11(c)(1).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy
has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
4

Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/02/23 Page 5 of 8
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] ... did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table.”
Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the
special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/02/23 Page 6 of 8
IV. Finding of Fact
A. Onset
Although I acknowledge that the standard applied to resolving onset for an alleged
Table SIRVA is liberal and will often permit a determination in a petitioner’s favor,
especially in the absence of contemporaneous and direct statements in the medical
records to the contrary, not every case can be so preponderantly established. Ultimately,
the resolution of such fact issues involves weighing different items of evidence against
the overall record.
Here, Petitioner’s claims of onset contradict a significant record created very near-
in-time to vaccination that the onset of her pain occurred longer than 48 hours after her
vaccination. There is no dispute that Petitioner received her flu vaccination on October
21, 2019, meaning that the onset of her shoulder pain must have begun by October 23,
2019 for her to establish the required timeline for a Table claim. However, in seeking
treatment, Petitioner consistently reported the onset of her left shoulder pain between
November 4 and 7, 2019.
For example, at her first post-vaccination visit to the university athletic trainer, the
date of injury was recorded as November 7, 2019. Ex. 8 at 15. At her first visit with a
doctor on November 18, 2019, Petitioner reported pain “for two weeks” – placing onset
on or about November 4, 2019. At her initial physical therapy evaluation on November
19, 2019, Petitioner reported pain for “a few weeks” and beginning “shortly” after her flu
shot. Ex. 3 at 187. Three weeks prior to November 19, 2019 was October 29, 2019, eight
days after Petitioner’s flu vaccination. Generally, information contained in
contemporaneously created medicals records is considered trustworthy because it is
provided close in time to the events in question for the purpose of obtaining medical care.
Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528. Even when the information in a record was provided to a
treater by the petitioner, it is still considered more trustworthy than allegations made at
the time a petition is filed, or thereafter. Here, multiple medical records created
approximately one month after vaccination describe Petitioner’s shoulder pain as
beginning approximately two weeks after her vaccination.
Although Petitioner states that her pain began immediately upon vaccination and
did not resolve, a fact corroborated by her mother her boyfriend, she reported the onset
of her injury as approximately two weeks later to at least three separate medical providers
within a month of her vaccination.4 There are situations in which compelling testimony
4 Petitioner later reported an onset of “2 months” ago at her orthopedist visit on December 19, 2019, which
suggests an onset around October 19, 2019 (before her vaccination). Ex. 5 at 22. Even though this report
is closer to the required 48-hour timeframe, it fails to provide sufficient specificity to overcome the previous
records.
6

Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/02/23 Page 7 of 8
may be more persuasive than written records, such as where records are deemed to be
incomplete or inaccurate. Campbell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775,
779 (2006) (“like any norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule should
not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for its
application are weak or lacking”); Lowrie v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005) (“[w]ritten records
which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which
are internally consistent”) (quoting Murphy v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 23 Cl. Ct.
726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). But here, the records
nearest in time to Petitioner’s vaccination are clear and consistent, and together
preponderate against a 48-hour onset. Petitioner’s testimonial statements do not undercut
that determination.
Accordingly, I find Petitioner has not preponderantly established that onset of his
pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination – meaning that she cannot proceed in this
action with a Table SIRVA claim, at a minimum.
B. Severity
Only a Table SIRVA claim requires a petitioner to prove onset of pain within 48
hours of vaccination. Thus, Ms. Miller’s inability to establish this element is not
automatically fatal to her claim, if recast as a causation-in-fact claim. However,
Respondent also contests a claim requirement that applies to any form of Program claim:
the need to demonstrate that the relevant vaccine injury continued for more than six
months. Resp. at 12.
In this case, Petitioner received her vaccination on October 21, 2019. Ex. 1 at 2. It
is undisputed that Petitioner’s last formal medical record relating to her injury was her
physical therapy discharge summary on March 10, 2020 – 42 days short of the six-month
period. In order to establish at least six months of residual effects, Petitioner must
establish that her residual symptoms continued until at least April 21, 2020.
At the time of her last physical therapy treatment on March 4, 2020, Petitioner
continued to demonstrate a need to continue formal physical therapy, as the therapist
noted that Petitioner fatigued with exercise. Ex. 8 at 29. The plan was to transition to a
home exercise program in another few weeks and to begin athletic conditioning. Id.
However, the plan was disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic and Petitioner was
discharged from physical therapy on March 10, 2020, despite continuing weakness in her
shoulder. Id. at 15; Ex. 10 at ¶10. On March 23, 2020, Petitioner continued to experience
symptoms of her injury, as she was unable to carry boxes while moving out of her dorm
when her university shut down during the early days of the pandemic. Ex. 10 at ¶10; Ex.
7

Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 37 Filed 02/02/23 Page 8 of 8
12 at ¶6. Thus, the severity requirement in this case requires a finding that Petitioner had
not yet fully recovered from her injury approximately four weeks after leaving school.
Although there is little evidence – and no medical records - regarding Petitioner’s
symptoms after March 23, 2020, Petitioner’s mother stated that after moving home,
Petitioner continued to perform her home exercise program daily, and continued to favor
her non-injured arm in completing household and personal tasks. Ex. 11 at 5. After
consideration of the entire record, I find that the evidence preponderates – just barely –
in Petitioner’s favor on this issue. While Petitioner and her mother did not state a specific
end date for her symptoms, it is simply more likely than not that Petitioner continued to
experience residual effects, even if minor, for four weeks after leaving school. This is
particularly true when considering that, due to the pandemic, Petitioner was left to treat
the residual effects of her injury without the assistance of continued formal physical
therapy, as was planned. Finally, the analysis requires a balance of the absence of record
evidence of continued treatment with the equal absence of record evidence that the injury
had completely resolved prior to April 21, 2020. Such a circumstance creates a “tie” in
evidence that, in the Vaccine Program, is resolved in favor of Petitioner. See Roberts v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-0427V, 2013 WL 5314698, at 10 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Aug. 29, 2013).
For all of the above reasons, I find that there is preponderant evidence that
Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her left shoulder injury for more than six months.
Conclusion
Petitioner has established that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged
vaccine-related injury for at least six months. However, as I also find that Petitioner has
not preponderantly established that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48
hours of vaccination, she cannot proceed in this action with a Table SIRVA claim.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is dismissed. The case will be reassigned to
a Special Master outside of the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01900-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/26/2023) regarding 44 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 48 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1900V
Filed: June 26, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
REBECCA JOAN MILLER, Special Master Horner
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On December 18, 2020, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that she suffered a Table
Injury of SIRVA in her left shoulder as a result of her October 19, 2019 influenza (“flu”)
vaccinations. (ECF No. 1.) This case was initially assigned to the Special Processing
Unit based on the allegations in the petition. (ECF No. 4.) However, on November 5,
2021, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report recommending against compensation. (ECF
No. 19.) On September 29, 2022, Chief Special Master Corcoran entered a Decision
dismissing petitioner’s Table claim after finding that petitioner had not established that
onset of her shoulder pain occurred within the requisite forty-eight hours of vaccination.
(ECF No. 30.) This case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned’s docket.
(ECF No. 31.) On October 3, 2022, I ordered petitioner to file an expert report to
support a cause-in-fact claim.
On June 23, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition.
(ECF No. 43.) Petitioner indicated that “[f]ollowing several discussions with experts, as
1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of
2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the document 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.

Case 1:20-vv-01900-UNJ Document 48 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 2
well as review of CSM finding of fact regarding onset,” petitioner was “ultimately unable
to retain an expert to support her case.” (Id. at 2.) Petitioner further stated that she
“understands that a decision dismissing her Petition will result in a judgment against
her. Petitioner has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the
Vaccine Program.” (Id. at 2.)
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either
(1) that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury
Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). To satisfy her
burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1)
a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the
injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2005). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from
ruling for petitioner based solely on her allegations unsubstantiated by medical records
or medical opinion.
Petitioner’s medical records do not support her allegations by a preponderance
of the evidence and she did not file a medical opinion from an expert in support of her
allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and
DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie case of entitlement to
compensation.
CONCLUSION
This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this decision.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2