1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 796V

Filed: January 30, 2017

[Not to be published]

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

KATHLEEN HARMAN

, *

* Special Master Gowen

Petitioner, *

v. *

* Dismissal; Influenza (“Flu”)

* Vaccine; Systemic Toxicity Injuries

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

Michael A. Baseluos , San Antonio, TX

, for petitioner.

Anne D. Martin , United States Dep ar t ment of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION 1

On October 15, 2013

, Kathleen Harman (“petitioner ”) filed a p etition pursuant to the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving

a n influenza (“ flu ”) vaccine on October 15 or 16, 2010 , she developed systemic toxicity injuries

. Petition at Preamble

. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an

award under the Program. On January 27, 2017 , petitioner moved for a dismissal decision.

Motion for a Decision, filed Jan. 27, 2017

.

Petitioner states that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting her case has

demonstrated to pe titioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in

the Vaccine Program.” Motion for a Decision, filed Jan. 27, 2017 , at 1. Petitioner states that she

“understands that a decision by the Special Master dismissing her petitio n will result in a

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intend s to post this decision 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 Ru le 18(b), petitioner 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 decisi on. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the

requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§

300aa

- 10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be

to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2

judgment against her,” and “has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in

the Vaccine Program.” Id. Respondent does not oppose petitioner’s motion.

T o receive compensatio n 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 the vaccin ation

. See §§ 13(a)( 1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence

that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury, ” nor do es petitioner allege that she suffered a “Table

Injury.” T he record does not contain any persuasive evidence indicating that pe titioner ’s alleged

injur ies w ere caused by the flu vaccine

. Under the Vaccine Act, 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. § 13(a)(1).

Petitioner claimed a significant array of symptoms and medical events that occurred shortly after

vaccination, but despite dilig ent effor ts by two different attorneys and on her own, petitioner was

unable to find or produce supportive expert testimony to causally link her medical events t o the

vaccination in question.

Accordingly, it is clear from the reco rd in this case that petitioner has failed to

demonstrate that she suffered a “Table Injury” or that the inju ries were “actually caused” by the

flu vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/ Thomas L. Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master