In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-434V

Filed: July 12, 2019

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

RUFUS D. PARKER, *

* Dismissal; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;

Petitioner, * Pneumococcal Vaccine; Shoulder Injury

* Related to Vaccine Administration 

v. * (“SIRVA”)

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

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

Nancy Routh Meyers, Esq., Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent. 

DECISION1

Roth, Special Master:

On March 23, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),

2

alleging that influenza (“flu”) and 

pneumococcal vaccinations he received on November 10, 2015 caused him to develop a shoulder 

injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) in each arm. The information in the record, 

however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. On July 12, 2019, petitioner

filed a Motion for Dismissal Decision requesting that his case be dismissed. ECF No. 23.

 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the 

Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-

347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision 

will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s 

inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party 

has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is 

a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes 

medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 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

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

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

to his vaccination, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. 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.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence 

indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused or in any way vaccine-related.

Under the 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). In this case, because there are insufficient medical records 

supporting petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioner, however, 

has offered no such opinion that supports a finding of entitlement.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to demonstrate 

either that he suffered a “Table Injury” or that his injuries were “actually caused” by a vaccination. 

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

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth

 Mindy Michaels Roth

Special Master