1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No

. 15

- 551 V

Filed: August 9 , 2016

[Not to be published]

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

J.W., by his parents and natural guardians, *

ROBY WILSON and JEANA WILSON, * Chief Special Master Dorsey

*

Petitioner s

, * Dismissal; Measles

- Mumps

- Rubella

v. * (“MMR”) Vaccine; Hepatitis A

* (“Hep A”) Vaccine; Encephalopathy ;

* Autism

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

Renee J. Gentry , Vaccine Injury Clinic, George Washington University Law School,

Washington, DC

, for petitioner s

. Ryan D. Pyles , United States Dep ar t ment of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION 1

On May 29, 2015

, Roby Wilson and Jeana Wilson (“petitioners”) filed a p etition on

behalf of t he i r minor child, J. W

., pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation

Program

. 2 Petitioners alleged that as a result of receiving M easles

- M umps

- R ubella (“MMR”),

Hepatitis A (“Hep A”), and Varicella vaccines on June 1, 2012, J.W. suffered brain injuries

resulting in a loss of speech and regression of development. Petition at ¶ 5

. Pet itioners filed an

Amended Petition on March 31, 2016, which further stated that J.W. was diagnosed with static

encephalopathy manifested by autism spectrum disorder on March 27, 2013 . Amended Petition,

dated Mar. 31, 2016, at ¶ 5. 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intend s to post this decision 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) . In accorda nce 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

propo sed 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 19 86, 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.2

On August 8 , 2016, petitioner s moved for a decision dismissing th eir petition, stating that

“ [a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting [the case] ha s demonstrated to the

Petitioner that he will be unable to prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine

Program.” Petitioners’ Motion for Decision Dismissing Petition at ¶ 1. Petitioners state that

they understand that a decision by the Special Master dismissing their petition will result in a

judgment against them, and that such a judgment will end all of their rights in the Vaccine

Program. Id. at ¶ 3 . Petitioners state that they intend to protect their rights to file a civil action.

Id. at ¶ 5

.

To receive compensatio n under the Program, petitioner s must prove either ( 1) that J .W

. suffered a “Table Injury”

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

— corresponding

to the vaccination, or ( 2) that J

. W

. suffered an injury that was actually caused by the vaccin ation

. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence

that J

. W

. suffered a “Table Injury, ” nor do petitioners allege that J .W. suffered a “Table Injury.”

Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any persuasive evidence

indicating that J

. W .’s alleged injur ies w ere caused by his June 1, 2012, vaccinations.

Under the Vaccine Act, petitioner s may not receive a Program award based solely on the

petitioner s ’ claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported 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 pe titioner s ’ claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support.

Petitioner s have not fil ed such an opinion.

Accordingly, it is clear from the reco rd in this case that petitioner has failed to

demonstrate either that J

. W

. suffered a “Table Injury” or that the inju ries were “actually caused”

by his June 1, 2012, vaccination s

. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The

Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/ Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master