In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: December 10, 2020

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

PAMELA HALBROOK, * UNPUBLISHED 

*

Petitioner, * No. 19-1572V

*

v. * Special Master Gowen

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Motion for Decision Dismissing Claim;

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

* Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic

Respondent. * Neuropathy.

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

Kathleen M. Loucks, Lommen Abdo Law Firm, Minneapolis, MN, for petitioner.

Ronalda E. Kosh, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION1

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

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

developed optic 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 entitlement 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 understands that a decision 

dismissing her petition will result in a judgment 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

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

1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because 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 Internet. 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 National 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 decision 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 respondent expressly reserves the 

right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e), to question the good faith and reasonable 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 does 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 intends 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, an examination of the record does not contain persuasive evidence that petitioner suffered 

a “Table Injury”. Thus, petitioner is limited to alleging causation-in-fact. The record does not 

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

the vaccine which she received.

Thus, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED 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).