In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1757V

Filed: March 16, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

BRANDON RICHARDSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

 

Jessica W. Hayes, Murray Law Firm, New Orleans, LA, for petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

On November 13, 2018, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood 

Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that he suffered 

aggravation of his Bell’s Palsy due to an adverse reaction to an influenza vaccination 

that he received on November 11, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On January 29, 2020, 

respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 30.) 

On May 13, 2020, a status conference was held where I explained why petitioner faced 

significant challenges in carrying his burden of proof. (ECF No. 32, p. 2.) I also 

questioned the reasonable basis of petitioner’s claim going forward given the existing 

record and encouraged petitioner to consider dismissing his claim. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner 

filed a status report on September 11, 2020 indicating that he intended to file additional 

evidence in the form of expert reports and witness affidavits documenting his injury. 

(ECF No. 36.) Petitioner was given additional time to file this evidence. 

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will 

be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government 

Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact 

medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be 

redacted from public access.

Special Master Horner

Petitioner’s Motion for Decision 

Dismissing Petition; significant 

aggravation; Influenza (flu) 

vaccine; Bell’s Palsy
2

However, on March 15, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing 

his Petition. (ECF No. 41.) Petitioner indicated that “[a]n investigation into the facts as 

well as the relevant medical and scientific evidence supporting the case has 

demonstrated to Petitioner that he will be unable to prove entitlement to compensation 

through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,” and that “further 

proceedings would be unreasonable and a waste of the resources of the Court, the 

parties, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner 

further stated that “[p]etitioner understands that a decision by the Special Master 

dismissing the petition will result in a judgment against him. [Petitioner] has been 

advised that the entry of a judgment against him will end all of his rights in the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” (Id. at 2.) 

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either 

(1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table 

– corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually

caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). To satisfy his burden of 

proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1) a 

medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical 

sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the 

injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and 

injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 

2005). Where a petitioner is seeking to prove that a vaccination aggravated a preexisting injury, petitioners must also establish the vaccinee’s condition prior to the 

administration of the vaccine, the vaccinee’s current condition, and whether the 

vaccinee’s current condition constitutes a “significant aggravation” of the condition prior 

to the vaccination. See Loving v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 135, 144 

(Fed. Cl. 2009) (combining the first three Whitecotton factors for claims regarding

aggravation of a Table injury with the three Althen factors for off table injury claims to 

create a six-part test for off-Table aggravation claims); see also W.C. v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., 704 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(applying the six-part Loving

test.). In all events, the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the 

undersigned from ruling for petitioner based solely on his allegations unsubstantiated by 

medical records or medical opinion. 

Petitioner’s medical records do not support his allegations by a preponderance of 

the evidence and he did not file a medical opinion from an expert in support of his 

allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for a Decision 

Dismissing the Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie

case of entitlement to compensation.
3

CONCLUSION

This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter 

judgment in accordance with this decision.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Daniel T. Horner

 Daniel T. Horner

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.