# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-759V Filed: October 1, 2019

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * JESSICA BARRETT, * UNPUBLISHED
* Petitioner, * * Dismissal; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;

v. * Shoulder Injury
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Paul Brazil, Esq., Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Glenn MacLeod, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent

.

DECISION 1

Roth, Special Master:

On June 28, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 2 alleging that she received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 30, 2013 and thereaft er suffered from a right shoulder injury. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. On October 1, 2019, petitioner filed a Motion for Dism issal Decision requesting that his case be
dismissed. ECF No. 52.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designate d “unpublished,” it will neve rtheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s
inclusion of certain kinds of confidential informa tion. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party 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 wh ich would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id

.

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 referen ces will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2 To receive compensation under the Program, pe titioner must prove either 1) that she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury fallin g within the Vaccine Inju ry Table – corresponding to his vaccination, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of th e record did not uncover any evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injur y.” Further, the record does not contain persua sive evidence indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused or in a ny way vaccine-related.

Under the Act, petitioner may not be given a Pr ogram award based solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be suppor ted by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient medical records supporting petitioner’s claim, a me dical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioner, however, has offered no such opinion that supports a finding of entitlement.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to demonstrate either that she suffered a “Table Injury” or that her injuries were “actually caused” by a
vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insuffici ent proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master