# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 08

- 396 V

Filed: Nov ember 5 , 2014

Not To Be Published

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

MATTHEW ANDERSON and *

SUZANNE ANDERSON

, p a r e n t s a n d *

n atural guardians of N.C.A., a minor, *

*

Petitione rs, * Autism; Petitioners’ Motion for a

* Decision Dismissing their Petition;

v. * Insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine

* Act Entitlement

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Robert Krakow

, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, N

. Y

. for p etitioner s

. Alexis Babcock

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for r espondent.

DECISION 1

Vowell

, Chief Special M aster:

On May 30, 2008

, petitioner s filed a Petition f or Vaccine Compensation in the

National Vacci ne Injury Compensation Program [“the Program”]

, 2 alleging that N.C.A.

was injured by a vaccine or vaccines listed on the Vaccine Inju ry Table. See § 14. The

information in the record 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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 intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913

(codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party

has 14 da ys to identify and move to redact medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in

42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must

include a proposed redacted decisio n. If, upo n review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material

fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be redac ted from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Child hood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 et seq. [ hereina fter “Vaccine Act” or

“the Act”] . Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2

O n Nov e mber 4, 2014

, the petitioner s moved for a decision on the merits of the

petition , acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to

compensation.

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner s must prove either 1)

that N.C.A. suffered a “Table Injury”

– i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury

Table

– corres ponding to one of N.C.A. ’s vacc inations, or 2) that N.C.A. suffered an

injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1).

E xamination of the record d oes not disclose any evidence that N.C.A. suffered a “Table

Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other

persuasive eviden ce indicating that N.C.A. ’s alleged injury was va ccine

- caused.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on

the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the

medical records or by a medical opinion. § 13 (a)(1). In this case, the recor d does not

contain medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee

was injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), the

petitioner s ’ claim for compensation is denied and t his case is dismissed for

insufficient proof

. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s / Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master