# ORJ GINAL 

# 3ln tbe Wntteb**~tate% ~ourt**  

# ofjfeberal**~lafmg** OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: June 20, 2018 

# F1LED JUN 20 20\8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUDITH A. BRIDGES, 

### * 

## * Petitioner, 

### * v. 

## * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH 

### * AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

### * * Respondent. 

### * * * * * * * * * * * 

## * * 

## * * * 

## * * * *

## * * * *

## * * Judith A. Bridges, petitioner,prose. UNPUBLISHED No. 18-726V 

## u S COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Special Master Gowen Dismissal; Pneumovax 23; Vaccine Injury Table; Allergies.

Alexis B. Babcock, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

### DECISION ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On May 23, 2018, Judith A. Bridges ("petitioner"), actingpro se, filed a claim within the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Program"). 2 Petitioner alleged that she received the Pneumococcal 23 ("Pneumovax 23") vaccination in her right arm on September 5, 2017, and immediately suffered an allergic reaction consisting ofa red and hot arm, shoulder pain, headaches, and ongoing allergic reactions to various foods. Petition (ECF No. 1 ). Petitioner also noted that she received the influenza vaccination in her left arm on the same day, but did not attribute it to her alleged injury. Id. On June 19, 2018, the undersigned held an initial status conference in the case. Petitioner appearedprose. Ms. Alexis Babcock appeared on behalfofrespondent. I explained that under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner is only able to pursue a claim for a vaccination that is set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table

. 

### § 1l(c)(l)(A)

. I then explained to petitioner that the Pneumovax 23

1 Pursuant to the E-Govermnent Act of2002, see 44 U

.S.C

. § 350I note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court's website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator /sources/7

. Before the decision is posted on the coui1's website, each pm1y has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction " of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or cormnercial 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 Rule 18(b). "An objecting pat1y must provide the couit with a proposed redacted version ofthe decision." Id. Ifneither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court's website without any changes. &
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Patt 2 ofthe National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012) (hereinafter "Vaccine Act" or "the Act"). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 

### REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION JUL 23 2018 OSM U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMSvaccine is not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table and thus is not covered by the Vaccine Program. See 42 CFR 

### § 100.3. Petitioner thanked me for explaining this fact to her and cla rified that she thought she was supposed to report the allergic reaction for statistical pmposes. I informed petitioner that the only choice we had was to dismiss the claim since the Pneumovax 23 vaccine is not covered. Respondent had no objections to this course ofaction. The Pneumovax 23 vaccine is not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. Thus, the petition is dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which reliefcan be gra te . The Clerk of the Court shall enterjudgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Special Master

2