1

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

WENDY NELSON, as parent and natural *

Guardian of an infant, I.N., * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * No. 19-494V

*

v. * Special Master Dorsey

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Her Petition; Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and

* Varicella (“MMRV”) Vaccine; Seizures;

Respondent. * Anaphylaxis; Encephalopathy; Anoxic Brain

* Injury; Hypoxic Brain Injury; Depression.

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

Bruce W. Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.

Alexis B.Babcock, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

On April 3, 2019, Wendy Nelson (“petitioner”), as parent and natural guardian of infant, 

I.N., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

(“Vaccine Program”)2alleging that I.N. suffered “non-epileptic seizures, tonic-clonic seizures,

general seizures, anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, anoxic brain injury, hypoxic brain injury, and

depression” as a result of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (“MMRV”) vaccination

administered on April 6, 2016. Petition at 1. The information in the record, however, does not

show entitlement to an award under the Program.

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will 

be available to anyone with access to the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure 

of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual 

section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: June 16, 2020 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Special Master 

On June 15, 2020, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her case, stating that she 

“does not wish to provide further proof and/or cannot provide evidence that will meet the 

standards of the Court to show entitlement to compensation in the Vaccine Program,” and thus, 

“to proceed any further would be unreasonable and may waste the resources of the Court, the 

[r]espondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Petitioner’s Motion for Decision Dismissing Her

Petition, filed June 15, 2020, at ¶¶ 1-2 (ECF No. 31). Petitioner states that she understands that a

decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against her, and that she has been

advised that such judgment will end all of her rights under the Vaccine Act. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner

states that she intends to protect her right to file a civil action and to elect to reject the Vaccine

Program judgment to file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 5.

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either (1) that I.N.. 

suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding 

to the vaccination, or (2) that I.N. suffered an injury that was actually caused by the vaccination. 

See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). The records submitted by petitioner show that she does not 

meet the statutory requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i) to establish entitlement to 

compensation. The Federal Circuit has explained that the eligibility requirements in Section 

11(c) are not mere pleading requirements or matters of proof at trial, but instead are “threshold 

criteri[a] for seeking entry into the compensation program.” Black v. Sec’y of Health & Human

Servs., 93 F.3d 781, 785-87 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, in light of petitioner’s motion and a review of the record, the undersigned 

finds that petitioner is not entitled to compensation. Thus, this case is dismissed. The Clerk 

shall enter judgment accordingly.