In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-1569V 

Filed: May 23, 2016 

Unpublished 

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

GLENDA IVY, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision

* Dismissing Her Petition; 

v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; 

* Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Vaccine Act Entitlement; 

HUMAN SERVICES, * Denial Without Hearing; 

 * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Howard Gold, Gold Law Firm, LLC, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, for petitioner. 

Robert Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On December 23, 2015, Glenda Ivy (“petitioner”) filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 

§300aa-10, et seq.2

(the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”).

3

 Petitioner alleges that she 

suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccination 

she received on December 27, 2012. Petition at 1. 

 

1

 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends 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). 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

 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 

3 The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
2 

The petition was filed without medical records shortly before expiration of the 

Vaccine Act’s statute of limitations. See § 16(a)(2) (applicable statute of limitations). 

During the subsequent six months, petitioner gathered and filed some of the medical 

records relevant for her claim. See Exhibits 1, 3-5, filed May 19, 2016 (ECF No. 13). 

By email communication on May 19, 2016, petitioner’s counsel informed the OSM staff 

attorney managing this SPU case that some records still were outstanding.4

 However, 

counsel added that, after a review of the medical records obtained, petitioner did not 

intend to proceed with her claim. 

 On May 23, 2016, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition, 

acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to 

compensation. (ECF No. 15). Petitioner indicated in her motion that “[a]n investigation 

of the facts and science supporting her case has demonstrated to petitioner that she will 

be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at

¶ 2. Petitioner further indicated that she “has been advised that such a judgment will 

end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. 

 To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that 

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

corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually 

caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the 

record does not disclose any evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, 

the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence 

indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused. 

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

the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the 

medical records or by a medical opinion. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not 

contain medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee 

was injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, and in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), 

petitioner’s claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for 

insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

5

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master

 

4

 Petitioner’s counsel included respondent’s counsel on the email correspondence. 

5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.