In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

(Filed: February 16, 2016) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED 

KIMBERLY TAIT and DAVID TAIT * No. 15-1415V 

on behalf of their minor child, D.T., *

* Chief Special Master Dorsey

Petitioners, * 

* Dismissal; MMR Vaccine; DTaP 

v. * Vaccine; IPV Vaccine; Hib Vaccine; 

* Type 1 Diabetes 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Andrew D. Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioners. 

Robert P. Coleman, III, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent. 

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION1

On November 23, 2015, Kimberly and David Tait (“petitioners”) filed a petition on 

behalf of their minor child, D.T., for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Act of 

1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2012) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioners alleged that as a result 

of receiving DTaP, Hib, IPV, and MMR vaccinations on January 30, 2015, D.T. developed Type 

1 Diabetes. Petition at Preamble, ¶¶ 9, 11. 

On February 12, 2016, petitioners filed a motion for a decision dismissing their petition. 

In the motion, petitioners state that after investigation into their claim, they “recognize they will 

likely be unable to meet their burden of proof and establish that D.T. is entitled to compensation 

in the Vaccine Program.” Motion for Decision at ¶ 3. Petitioners state that they understand that 

a decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against them, and that such a judgment 

will end all rights of D.T.’s rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 5.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post this decision 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). 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 § 300aa12(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 the 

requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access. 
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioners must prove either 1) that D.T. 

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

to her vaccination, or 2) that D.T. 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 D.T. suffered a “Table Injury,” nor do petitioners allege that he suffered a “Table 

Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive 

evidence indicating that D.T.’s injury was caused by the vaccinations he received on January 30, 

2015. 

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based solely on 

the petitioner’s claims. 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 the medical 

records are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be 

offered in support. Petitioners, however, have not offered such an opinion. 

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioners have failed to 

demonstrate either that D.T. suffered a “Table Injury” or that his injuries were caused-in-fact by 

vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. In the absence of a motion 

for review, the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Nora B. Dorsey 

Nora B. Dorsey 

Chief Special Master