# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 09

- 068V

Filed: June 16, 2015

Not to be Published

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

*

THOMAS J. CANNY and JULIA CANNY, *

parents and natural guardians *

of CC , a minor, *

*

Petitioner s

, *

* Autism; Petitioners’ Motion for a

* Decision Dismissing the Petition;

v. * Insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine

* Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Robert J. Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C.

, New York, NY, for Petitioners.

Traci R. Patton , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION 1

On February 5, 2009, P etitioner s filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 2 alleging th at va r ious

vaccinations injured CC. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to

an award under the Program.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this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 note (2006)). In

accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner 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, I agree that the identified material fits

within t he requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.

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

- 660, 100

Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 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.On June 12, 2015, P etitioners moved for a decision dismissing their petition,

acknowledging “ that they will be unable to prove that they are entitled to compensation in the

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program .” (Pet’rs’ Mot. Dismissing Pet

. 1.)

To receive compensatio n under the Program, P etitioner s must prove either 1) that CC

suffered a “Table Injury”

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

– corresponding

to one of CC ’s vaccinations, or 2) that CC 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 CC suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a

medical expert’s opinion or any other pers uasive evidence indicating that CC ’ s injury was

vaccine

- caused.

Under the Act, P etitioner s may not be given a Program award based solely on the

P etitioners’ 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 there are

insufficient medical records supporting Petitioners ’ claim, a medic al opinion must be offered in

supp ort. Petitioner s, however, have offered no such opinion.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that P etitioner s have fa iled to

demonstrate either that CC suffered a “Table Injury” or that CC ’ s inj uries were “actually caused”

by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master