In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

SANDRA MEADOR, *

*

* No. 19-1333V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. *

* Filed: April 28, 2021

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Entitlement; dismissal.

* 

Respondent. *

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

David J. Carney, Green & Schafle, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner; 

Adriana R. Teitel, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for 

respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1

Sandra Meador alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on 

October 11, 2016, caused her to develop rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”). Pet., filed 

Aug. 30, 2019, at 1-2. On March 2, 2021, Ms. Meador moved for a decision 

dismissing her petition.

I. Procedural History

Sandra Meador (“petitioner”) filed a petition on August 30, 2019. She then 

filed relevant medical records, which were complete on February 28, 2020. On 

March 17, 2020, a status conference was held in which petitioner was ordered to 

begin the process of retaining an expert and a deadline was set for the Secretary’s 

1 The E-Government, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to 

file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the 

document posted on the website.
2

Rule 4(c) report. The Secretary filed his Rule 4(c) report on June 15, 2020. In the 

report, the Secretary challenged causation. Resp’t’s Rep. at 8-9. 

In a status conference held on June 29, 2020, the undersigned discussed the 

potential effect of his decision in Tullio v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 

No. 15-51V, 2019 WL 7580149 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 19, 2019), mot. for rev. 

denied, 149 Fed. Cl. 448 (2020), on petitioner’s flu-RA claim. In the order 

following this status conference, the undersigned stated that any expert retained by 

petitioner should advance a different theory than the experts in Tullio for the case 

to proceed. 

Petitioner then attempted to procure an expert over the ensuing months,

requesting two extensions to her expert report deadline, but was unable to retain an 

expert to provide an opinion in her case. On March 2, 2021, petitioner filed a 

motion for a decision dismissing her petition, “based on the inability to secure a 

supportive expert . . . beyond the opinions that were already rejected by the instant 

Special Master in Tullio v. Sec’y of HHS.” Pet’r’s Mot. at 1. In this motion, 

petitioner requested that the undersigned issue a dismissal decision; however, the 

motion was filed in CM/ECF as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to 

Vaccine Rule 21(a). On April 28, 2021, petitioner was ordered to file a status 

report clarifying whether she intended to file a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal or 

a Motion for Dismissal Decision, which would result in a judgment. On April 28, 

2021, petitioner filed a status report stating that she intended to file a Motion for 

Dismissal Decision and “understands that a decision by the Special Master 

dismissing her petition will result in a judgment against her.” Pet’r’s Status Rep., 

filed Apr. 28, 2021, at 1. The Secretary did not file a response to petitioner’s 

motion. Therefore, this matter is now ready for adjudication.

II. Analysis

To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program (hereinafter “the Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the

vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine 

Injury Table – corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee 

suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) 

and 300aa-11(c)(1). Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award 

based solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be 

supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. 

§ 300aa-13(a)(1). 
2

In this case, petitioner filed medical records in support of her claim, but 

wishes to have her claim dismissed and judgment entered against her. Though 

petitioner filed this motion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—21(a) (regarding 

voluntary dismissal), the undersigned will construe this as a motion filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—21(b) (regarding involuntary dismissal), given petitioner’s

clear intent that a judgment issue in this case, protecting her right to file a civil 

action in the future. See Pet’r’s Status Rep., filed Apr. 28, 2021, at 1. 

To conform to section 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact and 

conclusions of law.” Here, without the support of a medical expert or additional 

evidence supporting causation other than petitioner’s medical records, the evidence 

weighs against a finding that Ms. Meador developed RA as a result of the flu 

vaccine. 

Thus, the Motion for Decision is GRANTED and this case is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall 

enter judgment accordingly. See Vaccine Rule 21(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master