# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 908V

Filed: October 9, 2018

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

PATRICIA WOOLF

, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * Dismissal; Influenza ( “ Flu ” ) Vaccine ;

* Guillain

- Barre Syndrome ( “ GBS ” ).

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

Richard Gage

, Esq., Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY

, for petitioner.

Darryl Wishard

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

.

DECISION 1

Roth, Special Master:

On July 5, 2017

, petitioner filed a p etition for Vaccine Compensation in the National

Vacci ne Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”)

, 2 alleging that an influenza vaccine caused

her to develop Guillain

- Barre Syndrome ( “ GBS ” )

. The information in the record, however, does

not show entitlement to an awar d under the Program. On October 5, 2018

, petitioner filed a Status

Report requesting a dismissal decision

. ECF No. 27.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “ un published,” 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 whic h 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 con stitute 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. 3 755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 et seq. (hereinafte r “Vaccine Act” or “the

Act”). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2

To receive compensatio n under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that s he

suffered a “Table Injury”

– i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table

– corresponding

to h er 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). 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

.

Un der 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 opi nion

of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient medical records

supporting pe titioner’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 reco rd in this case that petitioner has failed to demonstrate

either that s he suffered a “Table Injury” or that her injuries were “actu ally caused” by a

vaccination. Thus, this case is dis missed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth

Mindy Michaels Roth

Special Master