1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: November 7, 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

COURTNEY MILLER and BER NARD * Case No. 13-914 MILLER, on behalf of E.M.M., * a minor, * Special Master Dorsey

* Petitioners, *

*

v. * Petitioners’ Motion for Dismissal * Decision; Insufficient Proof of SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Causation; Vaccine Act Entitlement; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Multiple Vaccines; Chronic * Constipation; Gastrointestinal Respondent. * Problems.

*

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

Peter Harwood Meyers, National Law Ce nter, Washington, DC, for Petitioners. Ann Donohue Martin, United Stat es Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION 1

On November 20, 2013, Courtney and Bernard M iller (“petitioners”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”), on behalf of their minor daughter, E.M.M. Petitioners alleged that “the vaccines E.M.M. received from July 31, 2009, un til April 12, 2011,” caused her to suffer from “chronic constipation, developmen tal regression and related probl ems.” Petition at 1-2. On March 15, 2014, petitioners filed an Amended Petition, revising their allegations to omit developmental regression as a claimed injur y, maintaining instead that E.M.M.’s “chronic constipation and gastrointestinal problems were cau sed-in-fact by the aggregat e of her vaccines.”

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reas oned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Govern ment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 and note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to iden tify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the crit eria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Furt her, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must includ e a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within th e requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access.2 Amended Petition at 9.

Respondent filed the Rule 4(c) report on June 16, 2014, stat ing that this case was not appropriate for compensation. Respondent stated that petitio ners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that E.M.M.’s chr onic constipation and gast rointestinal problems were caused-in-fact by any of her vaccinations. Respondent argued that the evidence produced

to date fails to demonstrate a reasonable basi s for moving forward and states that the petition

must be dismissed.

On November 5, 2014, petitioners filed an unoppos ed motion for a dismissal decision. In their motion, petitioners state that “an investigation of the fact s and science supporting [their] case] has demonstrated to the Petitioners that they will be unable to prove that E.M.M. is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Motion at 1. Petitioners states 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 in the Vaccine Pr ogram. Id. Respondent has no objection to petitioners’ motion. 2

To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, petitioners must prove either 1) that E.M.M. suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an in jury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to one of her vaccinat ions, or 2) that E.M.M. suffere d an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) a nd 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that E.M.M. su ffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive ev idence indicating that E.M.M.’s injuries were caused by a vaccination.

Under the Vaccine Act, a pe titioner may not be awarded compensation based solely on the petitioner’s claims. Rather, the petition mu st 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 entitleme nt to compensation, a medical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioners, however, have not offered a medical expert opinion.

Therefore, the only alternative remains to DENY this petition. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. In the abse nce of a motion for review, the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Special Master

2 Respondent was contacted on November 6, 2014 via email by the undersigned’s law clerk, and respondent confirmed that she has no objection to the special master issuing a decision dismissing the petition, as petitione rs represent in their motion.