In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-517V

Filed: January 27, 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

ROBERT BOYER and PAMELA * No. 12-517V

BOYER, natural parents and *

guardians of AB, * Special Master Dorsey

a minor, *

* Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment on 

Petitioners, * the Record; Insufficient Proof of

* Causation; Vaccine Act Entitlement;

v. * Denial Without a Hearing; Flu-like

* Symptoms; Extreme Fatigue; 

* Dizziness; Postural Orthostatic

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Tachycardia Syndrome (“POTS”);

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * HPV Vaccine; VZV Vaccine; Flu

* Vaccine; MVC4 Vaccine; Tdap

Respondent. * Vaccine; HAV Vaccine; HIV 

* Vaccine.

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

Thomas P. Gallagher, Somers Point, NJ, for Petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1

On August 16, 2012, Robert and Pamela Boyer (“petitioners”), as the parents and natural 

guardians of AB, filed a petition pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioners alleged that AB suffered from 

flu-like symptoms, extreme fatigue, dizziness, and Postural Orthostatic Tachychardia Syndrome 

(“POTS”) caused by the human papillomavirus (“HPV”), varicella (“VZV”), flu, MVC4, Tdap, 

HAV and/or HIV vaccines she received on September 4th and October 5th, 2009. 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 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 and note (2006)). 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. 

 
On December 11, 2013, petitioners filed a motion for judgment on the existing record. In 

their motion, petitioners indicate that their expert, having reviewed the medical records in this 

case, does not feel that he can write a report supporting petitioners’ claim. Petitioners’ counsel 

states that he spoke with Pamela Boyer on November 23, 2013, regarding the expert’s decision, 

and that “Mrs. Boyer understands the difficulty in proving her daughter’s injury was caused by 

the vaccines she received.” According to petitioners’ counsel, Mrs. Boyer has agreed to the 

filing of the instant motion.

Before ruling on petitioners’ motion for judgment on the record, the undersigned issued 

an order informing that parties that, unless they objected within one week, the caption in this 

case would be altered to refer to AB by her initials rather than her full name. See Order, dated 

January 17, 2014, at 1. As of today, a week has passed, and petitioners have not filed an 

objection. 

On January 23, 2014, petitioners filed a motion for a decision dismissing their petition. 

They again assert that “an investigation of the facts and science supporting their case has 

demonstrated ... that they will be unable to prove that they are entitled to compensation in the 

Vaccine Program.” They state that they “understand that a decision by the Special Master 

dismissing their petition will result in judgment against them,” and that “[t]hey have been 

advised that such a judgment will end their rights in the Vaccine Program.” They also 

understand that they may apply for costs after judgment has entered on a dismissal. 

To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, petitioners must prove either 1) that AB

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

to one of AB’s vaccinations, or 2) that AB suffered an injury that was actually caused by a 

vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not 

uncover any evidence that AB suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a 

medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that AB’s injuries were 

caused by a vaccination.

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

petitioner’s claims. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the 

opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-13(a)(1). In this case, because the medical records

are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be offered in 

support. Petitioners, however, have offered no such opinion.

Therefore, the only alternative remains to DENY this petition. Thus, this case is 

dismissed for insufficient proof. In the absence of a motion for review, the Clerk shall 

enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nora Beth Dorsey

 Nora Beth Dorsey

Special Master