# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 10

- 798 V

Filed: November 12 , 2014

Not to be Published

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

*

ALEX HIGDON and JANE HIGDON, *

parent s of A.H., a minor, *

*

Petitio ner s

, * Autism; Petitioner s’ Motion for a

* Deci sion Dismissing the Petition;

v. * Insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine

* Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

DECISION 1

On November 17, 2010

, petitioner s filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 2 alleging th at va r ious

vaccinations injured A.H . The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to

an award under the Program.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to

post this decision 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 delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B).

Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted

decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that

provision, I will delete such material from public access.

2 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.On November 12 , 2014, petitioner s moved for a decision dismissing the ir petition

,

acknowledging that they will be unable to prove they are entitled to compensation in the

Program

.

To receive compensatio n under the Program, petitioner s must p rove either 1) that A.H

. suffered a “Table Injury”

– i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table

– corresponding

to one of A.H

. ’s vaccinations, or 2) that A.H

. 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 A.H

. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a

medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that A.H

. ’ s alleged injury

was vaccine

- caused.

Under the Act, petitioner s may not be given a Program award based solely on the

petitioners’ claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by

the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa

- 13(a)(1). I n this case, because there are

insufficient medical records supporting petitioners’ claim, a medical opinion must be offered in

supp ort. Petitioner s , however, have offered no such opinion.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner s have failed to

demonstrate either that A.H

. suffered a “Table Injury” or that A.H

. ’ s injuries were “actually

caused” by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall

enter judgment accordi ngly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master