# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1 210 V

( Unpublished )

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

CHRISTINA CHRISTOPHER

,

Petitioner

,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

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

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* Special Master Katherine E. Oler

Filed: April 27, 2020

Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision ;

Dismissal of Petition; Vaccine Act

.

Amy Senerth

, Muller Brazil, LLP

, Dresher, PA

, for Petitioner.

Debra Begley

, U.S. Dep artmen t of Justice, Washington, DC

, for Respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION 1

I. Procedural History

On August 14, 2018, Christina Christopher (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

, 2 alleging that she suffered left arm and

shoulder injuries as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 28, 2015.

Pet. at 1. Petitioner filed three statements of completion on August 30, 2018, November 26, 2018,

and June 19, 2019. ECF Nos. 7, 14, 21.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted

on the Court of Federal Claims ’s website in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. §

3501 (2012). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet . As provided

by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusi on 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 su bstance 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

R ule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be ava ilable. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.

No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine

Act” or “the Act”). Individual section re ferences hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that

statutory prefix).2

On September 25, 2019, I held a status conference with the parties to discuss Petitioner’s

claim. See Minute Entry on 9/26/19. Petitioner’s c ounsel confirmed that Petitioner was not

pursuing a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) claim but that the flu

vaccination caused nerve pain in her left arm and elbow. See Order on 9/26/19, ECF No. 27. The

parties agreed that a factual determination regarding the onset of Petitioner’s pain would be the

next logical step in this case. Id. On November 25, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Fact

Ruling on the Issue of On set. ECF No. 29. On December 23, 2019, Respondent filed a Response

to Petitioner’s Motion. ECF No. 30. On April 8, 2020, I found that (1) Petitioner was administered

a flu vaccine in her left arm on October 15, 2015; (2) Petitioner experienced pain in her left elbow

and left arm; and (3) the onset of Petitioner’s painful symptoms occurred between September 15,

2015 and September 21, 2015.

Petitioner filed the instant motion to dismiss her claim on April 27 , 2020 , indicating “ s he

will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program .” Pet’r’s Mot.

at 1 , ECF No. 34

.

II. Conclusion

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitio ner must prove either (1) that

s he suffered a “Table Injury”

– i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Ta b le

– corresponding to her vaccination, or (2) that s he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a

vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1)

. Moreover, u nder the Vaccine Ac t, a petitioner may not

receive a Vaccine P rogram award based solely on her claims alone. Rather, the petition must be

supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical expert

. § 13(a)(1).

In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioner to meet h er burden

of proof. Petiti oner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and

, in accordance with h er motion, must be

dismissed. § 11(c)(1)(A).

As such, IT IS ORDERED THAT

,

Petitioner’s Motion for A Decision Dismissing Her Petition is GRANTED and the petition

is hereby DISMISSED . The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions regarding this Order may be directed to my law clerk, Sydney Lee, by

telephone at 202

- 35 7

- 6347, or by email at Sydney Lee@cfc.uscourts.gov

.

s / Katherine E. Ole r

Katherine E. Oler

Special Master