# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: December 10, 2020

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

PAMELA HALBROOK

, * UNPUBLIS HED

*

Petitioner, * No. 1 9

- 1 5 7 2 V

*

v. * Special Master Gowen

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Motion for D ecision Dism issing Claim;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Influenza (Flu) ; Optic Neuritis;

* Non

- Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic

Respondent. * Neuro pathy.

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

Kathleen M

. Loucks

, Lommen Abdo Law Firm, Minneapolis, MN , for petitioner

. R ona lda E. Kosh , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION 1

On October 9, 2019, Pamela Halb rook (“petitioner ”), filed a petition in the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner s alleged that she

developed opt ic neuritis as a result of her receipt of an influenza /( flu) vaccination on October

24, 2016. Id. The information in the record, does not establish ent itlement to compensation.

On December 10 , 2020, petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing her petition.

Petitioner ’ s Motion (“Pet. Mot.”) (ECF No. 24 ). Petitioner understand s that a decision

dismissing her petition will result in a judgmen t against her

. Id. at ¶ 4

. She has been advised

that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. Petitioner

understand s that she may apply for fees and costs once her case is dismissed and judgment is

1 P ursuant to the E

- Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), b ecause this opinion contains a

reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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

. This means the

opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Interne t. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s

website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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 Rule 18(b). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the

opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the

court’s website without any changes. Id.

2 The Nationa l Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in 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

- 1 to

- 34 (2012)

(Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this d ecision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §

300aa.2

entered against her

. Id. at ¶ 5

. Petitioner ’ s counsel has contacted respondent’s counsel regarding

respondent’s position on this motion and understands that r espondent expressly reserves the

right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e), to question the good faith and reaso nable basis of the

claim and to oppose, if appropriate, the application for fees and costs. Id. Respondent otherwise

does not oppose this motion. Id. Petitioner do es intend to protect her rights to file a civil action

in the future. Id. at ¶ 6 . Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 21(a)(2), she intend s to elect

to reject the Vaccine Program judgment against her and elect to file a civil action. Id.

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitioner has the burden of proving

either: (1) a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified period of time following

receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a “Table injury”) or (2) an

injury that was caused

- in

- fact by a covered vaccine. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1).

Here, a n examination of the record does not contain persuasive evidence tha t petitioner suffered

a “Table Injury”

. Thus, petit ioner is limited to alleging causation

- in

- fact. The record does not

contain pe rsuasive evidence that petitioner ’s injury was caused in fact or in any way related to

the vaccine which s he received.

Thus, petitioner ’ s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMI SSED for insufficient

proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas L. Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master

3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule

11(a).