Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(b)(1)(A), 300aa-11(c)(1)(A); see also Schafer, 20 F.3d at 7; Head v. Sec’y of Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 26 Cl.Ct. 546, 547 n. 1 (1992), aff'd, 996 F.2d 318 (Fed.Cir.1993). In this case, neither Plaintiff alleges to have “suffered a relevant injury ... after he or she received a vaccine.” Nor have Plaintiffs asserted any claims in a representative capacity. Therefore, the Vaccine Act’s requirement that petitioners file a Program petition prior to a lawsuit does not bar Plaintiffs from filing the instant action against the Vaccine Manufacturers. See Schafer, 20 F.3d at 5 (explaining that the Vaccine Act’s tort suit ban does not apply to individuals who cannot file petition in the Vaccine Court except in a representative capacity); Head, 26 Cl.Ct. at 550 (<HOLDING>); McDonald v. Lederle Labs., 341 N.J. Super. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mother who neither owned vehicle in question nor had control over her daughter could not be liable as a matter of law for damages caused by daughters negligent driving (B) holding that an amendment by a plaintiff to allege a claim in her representative capacity as adminis trator of estate under federal law related back to claims brought in her individual capacity under state law such an amendment was not equivalent to the commencement of a new cause of action so as to subject the amendment to the statute of limitations (C) holding that an award to a mother in her individual capacity in an action arising from vaccinerelated injuries received by her daughter did not bar the daughters subsequent action under the vaccine act (D) holding that daughter had no express authority to sign arbitration agreement for mother where no power of attorney and daughter did not discuss signing the agreement with her mother (E) holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends
Output (English): holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends