In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-291V

Filed: May 13, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

AMY LEA, as Personal Representative *

of the Estate of MICHAEL LEA, *

* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petitioner’s Motion for Dismissal

* Decision; Guillain-Barré Syndrome;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine. 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Diana Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.

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

DECISION1

On April 11, 2014, Amy Lea (“Petitioner”), as the Personal Representative of the Estate 

of Michael Lea, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury 

Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that

Michael Lea suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza vaccine 

he received on October 28, 2011. Petition (“Pet”) at 1-2. The undersigned now finds that the 

information in the record does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. 

On May 8, 2015, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for a Decision Dismissing her 

Petition. Motion, ECF No. 27. According to the motion, “[a]n investigation of the facts and 

science supporting her case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that they will be unable to prove that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Motion at 1. Petitioner further 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 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. 
2

states that she understands that dismissal decision will result in a judgment against her, and that 

such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id.

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

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

corresponding to one of his vaccinations, or 2) that he 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 Michael Lea suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does 

not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that his

injuries were caused by a vaccination.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation 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. § 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. Petitioner, however, has 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/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

 Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master