1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: November 21, 2018

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

CHRISTINE TODISH, *

* No. 16-275V

Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders

*

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

DECISION1

On February 26, 2016, Christine Todish (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Program” or “Act”). 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-10 to -34 (2012).2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered from Telogen Effluvium as a result 

of the Gardasil vaccinations she received on November 15, 2012, January 11, 2013, and May 21, 

2013. Petition, ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to 

an award under the Program. On November 19, 2018, Petitioner submitted a Motion to Dismiss 

her petition. ECF No. 62. Respondent did not object to Petitioner’s Motion. Id. at 1. 

 

To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that she 

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

to the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 

13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that Petitioner 

suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain evidence that the injury alleged by 

Petitioner was caused by the Gardasil vaccinations.

Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims

alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent 

 

1 This decision shall be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify 

and move to delete medical or other information that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, 

consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. 

If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that 

provision, such material will be deleted from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–660, 100 Stat. 3755.
2

physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s claim. 

Although Petitioner has filed three expert reports in support of her claim, the reports opine on a 

diagnosis—alopecia areata—which is neither alleged in the petition nor contained in the medical 

records. See Pet’r Exs. 6, 54, 60, ECF Nos. 36, 49. Petitioner was unable to secure a medical 

expert to confirm a diagnosis of the injury alleged in her petition—Telogen Effluvium. See ECF 

No. 58. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to support Petitioner’s claim that her vaccinations 

caused her alleged injury, this case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall 

enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Herbrina D. Sanders

 Herbrina D. Sanders

Special Master