# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 8

- 1476V

(not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chief Special Master Corcoran

*

KAREN GOLDIE

, *

*

*

Petitioner, * Filed: October 11 , 2019

*

v. *

* Motion for Decision Dismissing

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Petition.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

James Michael Kelly

, Robbins, Kelly, Patterson & Tucker

, L PA

, Cincin nati

, OH , for Petitioners.

Robert Paul Coleman III , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING CASE 1

O n September 26 , 201 8

, Karen Goldie filed a petition seeking compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleged that the

influenza vaccine she received on October 16 , 201 5 caused her to suffer from Guillain

- Barr é

s yndrome and Chronic I n flammatory Dem y elinating Polyneuropathy

. Pet. at 1.

1 Although this D ecision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the

Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012)). This

means that the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the D ecision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.

Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each p arty has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any

information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged

or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Ru le 18(b). Otherwise, the whole D ecision will be available to the public

in its current form

. Id

.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhoo d Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660,

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the

Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).2 After the claim’s initiation

, Petitioner filed medical records and exhibits to supplement her

P etition. Shortly the reafter

, Respondent filed a Rule 4 (c) report taking the position that Petitioner

was not ent it led to compensati on. R esp. ’ s Repor t, filed Ju ly 24 , 2019 (EC F No. 1 7 )

.

On September 11 , 2019, Petitioner’s counsel contacted my chambers and indicated that s he

now wanted to dismiss h er claim. A status conference with the parties was held on September 30,

2019

, and Petitioner reiterated h er desire to dismiss h er claim

. I instructed Petitioner that s he

should file a motion for decision to that end, and s he has done so. Mot. t o Dismiss, filed October

7 , 2019 (ECF No. 18 ). In it, Petitioner explain s

— as s he had done verbally in the earlier status

conference

— that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated to her that s he would be

unable to prove s he was entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program. Id. at 2 . Petitioner

acknowledged that under such circumstances it would be unreasonable to waste the resources of

the court, R espondent, and Vaccine Program. Id. Respondent has not lodged an objection to the

claim’s dismissal.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner ma y not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely

on h er claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the

opinion of a competent physician. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence in

the recor d for Petitioner to meet h er burden of proof. Therefore, without an entitlement hearing,

Petitioner's claim cannot succeed and must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).

Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS Petitioner’s case. In the absence of a motion for review

filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in

accordance with the terms of this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Maste r

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices

renouncing their right to seek review.