# 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* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED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.

DECISION 1

On April 11 , 2014

, Amy Lea (“P etitioner ”) , 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 th e 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 su pporting her case has demon strated to [P]etitioner that they will be unable to prove that

Petitioner is entitle d 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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 mater ial will be deleted from public access.2

state s 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 und er the Vaccine Act , P etit ion er must prove either 1) that

Michael Lea suffered a “Table In jury”

– 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 m ay 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

dism issed for insufficient proof. In the absence of a motion for review, t he Clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master