In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-973V

(Not to be Published)

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

SAMANTHA BRADY, *

* Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, * 

* Dated: February 15, 2022

v. * 

*

*

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Robert Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Kimberly Davey, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1

On July 5, 2019, Janeen and Michael Brady filed a petition on behalf of Samantha Brady 

seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine 

Program”), 2 and alleging that the human papillomavirus vaccine (“HPV”) administered on July 

13, 2016, and October 9, 2017, caused her to suffer from Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia 

syndrome (“POTS”), autonomic dysfunction, transaminitis, inflammatory autoimmune disorder, 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the 

Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This 

means that the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. 

Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party hasfourteen days within which 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 constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. 

Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 

All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
2

along with a list of other symptoms. Petition, dated July 5, 2019, at 1–2 (ECF No. 1) (“Pet.”). The 

caption was later amended to make Ms. Brady the Petitioner.

The matter was transferred to me in January 2021, and not long after Petitioner filed an 

expert report in support of the claim. But Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report was accompanied by a 

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 67). That motion was fully briefed—but then not long afterPetitioner 

file a Status Report stating that she intended to seek the claim’s dismissal (ECF No. 73). Petitioner 

has now filed an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. Motion, dated Feb. 14, 2022 (ECF No. 74). 

Petitioner states that she acknowledges that she is unable to prove her claim under the Vaccine 

Program. Id. at 1. Along with this, she conveys her understanding that a judgment will be entered 

against her, and that she will protect her right to file a civil action in the future under 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-21(a)(2). Id. at 2. Respondent via informal statement has indicated no objection to the 

Motion.

ANALYSIS

The provisions under the Vaccine Rules for ending a case before a decision has been issued 

are largely inapplicable herein. Petitioner may no longer avail himself of Vaccine Rule 

21(a)(1)(A), which governs voluntary dismissals before service of the Rule 4(c) Report, and 

Respondent has not stipulated to dismissal under Rule 21(a)(1)(B). In addition, even if the parties 

had so stipulated, Petitioner seeks entry of a judgment, whereas Vaccine Rule 21(a) would only 

result in an “order concluding proceedings.” Rule 21(a)(3).

Accordingly, the only remaining channel for the relief Petitioner requests is a “motion 

seeking dismissal”—a mechanism for ending cases that other claimants have used, either because 

they have determined that the claim cannot succeed, or simply because they choose not to continue 

with the claim, but have reached that determination after the time to act under Rule 21 has passed. 

See, e.g., Goldie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1476V, 2019 WL 6045647, at *1 

(Fed. Cl Spec. Mstr. Oct. 11, 2019). Dismissal of Vaccine Program cases at this particular stage 

of the litigation is not uncommon. Indeed, the rules of the Court of Federal Claims (which are 

properly applied herein) permit dismissal of claims at a petitioner/plaintiff’s request and “on terms

that the court considers proper.” RCFC 41(a)(2). Petitioner has now advanced such a motion.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely 

on her claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the 

opinion of a competent physician. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence in 

the record for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof, as Petitioner acknowledges. Therefore, 

Petitioner’s claim cannot succeed and must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).
3

Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS Petitioner’s case. In the absence of a motion for review 

filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in 

accordance with the terms of this Decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices 

renouncing their right to seek review.