# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: December 14, 2020

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

ROBERT UHL, * Unpubli shed

*

Petitioner, * No. 18

- 1823V

*

v. * Special Master Gowen

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

Harrison W. Long

, Rawls Law Gr oup

, Rich mond, VA, for petitioner.

Jennifer L. Reynaud

, U.S. Department of Ju stice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DISMISSAL DECISION 1

On November 28, 2018, Robert Uhl ( “ petitioner ” ) filed a petition for compensation under

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program or Program). 2 Petitioner

allege d that he suffered Guillain

- Ba rr é Syndrome ( “ GBS ” ) as a result of receiving the influenza

vaccine on November 13, 20 16. Petition (ECF N o. 1). The information in the record does not

establish e ntitlement to compensation.

On December 14, 2020, petitione r filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition.

Petition er ’ s Motion ( “ Pet. Mot. ” ) (ECF No. 39). Petitioner state s that he has been unable to

re tain an expert in this matter, which has demonstrated that he will be unable to prove

entitlement and to proceed further would be unreasonable and waste the resources of the Court,

the respondent and the Vaccine progr am . Pet. Mot. at ¶ 1

- 2 . Petitioner understand that

1 P ursuant to the E

- Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), b ecause this opinion contains a

reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of

Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7

. This means the

opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s

website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party:

(1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that

includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the

opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the

court’s website without any changes. Id.

2 The Nation al Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in 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

- 1 to

- 34 (2012)

(Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §

300aa.2

dismissing his petition wil l result in a judgment against him and has been a dvised that such a

judgment will end all of his rights, for the vaccine in question in this matter, in the Vaccine

program. Pet. Mot. at ¶ 3

. Petition er also understands that his attorney may a pply for attorneys ’

fee s and costs once his case is dismissed and judgment is entered against him. Id. at ¶ 4.

Petitioner als o unders tands that respondent re serves the right, pursuant to § 300 aa

- 15 ( e) , to

question the good faith and reasonable basis of his claim and to op pose, if appro priate, his

application fo r costs. Id. Petitioner i ntends to protect his rights to fil e a civil action in the future.

Id. at ¶ 5.

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioners have the burden of proving

either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified

p eriod of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a

“Table injury”) or (2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused

- in

- fact by a covered

vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). In this case, petitioner was not alleging a Table Injury and

therefore, must demonstrate the vaccine was the cause

- in

- fact of her alleged injuries. To satisfy

h is burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1)) a

medical theory causally c onnecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of

cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of

a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Hea lth &

Human Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Program may not award compensation

based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petitioner must support the claim with either

medical records or the opinion of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the

medical records are insufficient to establish entitlement and petitioner h as not presented an

expert opinion t o support a finding of vaccine causation under Althen.

Thus, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED for insufficient

proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas L. Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master

3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule

11(a).