In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: December 14, 2020

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

ROBERT UHL, * Unpublished

*

Petitioner, * No. 18-1823V

*

v. * Special Master Gowen

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof. 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

Harrison W. Long, Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.

Jennifer L. Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. 

DISMISSAL DECISION1

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 

alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of receiving the influenza 

vaccine on November 13, 2016. Petition (ECF No. 1). The information in the record does not 

establish entitlement to compensation.

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

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

retain 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 program. Pet. Mot. at ¶ 1-2. Petitioner understand that 

1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because 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 National 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 will result in a judgment against him and has been advised 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. Petitioner also understands that his attorney may apply for attorneys’

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

Petitioner also understands that respondent reserves the right, pursuant to §300aa-15(e), to 

question the good faith and reasonable basis of his claim and to oppose, if appropriate, his 

application for costs. Id. Petitioner intends to protect his rights to file 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 

period 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 

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

medical theory causally connecting 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 Health & 

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 has not presented an 

expert opinion to 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).