ORJGINAL 

3ln tbe Wntteb ~tate% ~ourt of jfeberal ~lafmg OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

Filed: June 20, 2018 F1LED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JUN 2 0 20\8 

JUDITH A. BRIDGES, * 

* 

Petitioner, * 

v. * 

* 

SECRETARY OF HEAL TH * 

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UNPUBLISHED 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 of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON ENTITLEMENT1 

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 of a 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 

appeared prose. Ms. Alexis Babcock appeared on behalf of respondent. 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. § 1 l(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. § 350 I 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. If neither 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 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 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 CLAIMS
vaccine 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 

clarified 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 of action. 

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 relief can be gra te . The 

Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Special Master 

2