# 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* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED KIMBERLY TAIT and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 Petitioner s , *

* 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 petitioner s

. Robert P. Colema n, III, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for re spondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION 1

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. Petitioner s state that they understand that a decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against them , and that such a judgmen t 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal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 14days 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 P rogram, petitioners must prov e e ithe r 1) tha t D.T.

suffered a “ Ta

ble Injury”— i.e., an injury falling w ithin the Va cc ine Injury Table

— corresponding to her va ccination, or 2) t ha t D.T. suffere d an injury that was actually c aused by a v accine. 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,” n or do petitioner s allege that he suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not c ontain a m edical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indi cating that D.T. ’s injury was cause d by the vaccinations he re ceived 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 o r 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