In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-705V

Filed: October 5, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

PATRICK W. WILSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

 

Richard H. Moeller, Moore, Heffernan, Moeller & Meis, Sioux City, IA, for petitioner.

Jennifer Lyn Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

On May 14, 2019, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine 

Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that he suffered “pain, illness, 

disabilities, injuries, and conditions which are a result of or caused in fact by the [Tdap 

vaccines]” received on November 1, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On December 17, 2019, 

petitioner amended his petition to allege more specifically that he suffered rheumatoid 

arthritis as a result from his November 1, 2018 vaccinations. (ECF No. 13.) On 

September 18, 2020, respondent filed his Rule 4 report, recommending against 

compensation. (ECF No. 26.)

On October 5, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing his 

Petition.2 (ECF No. 27.) Petitioner indicated that his “investigation of the facts and 

medical science relative to his claim now indicates that he may not be able to offer 

sufficient evidence to entitle him to compensation according [to] the elements and 

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will 

be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government 

Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

Internet. 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 the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be 

redacted from public access.

2 Petitioner confirmed in this motion that respondent does not oppose the motion. (ECF No. 27, p. 2).

Special Master Horner

Petitioner’s Motion for Decision 

Dismissing Petition; Tdap 

Vaccine; Rheumatoid Arthritis
2

burdens under Althen and its progeny,” and that “to proceed further to prosecute this 

claim may not be prudent.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner further stated that “[p]etitioner 

understands that a decision by the Special Master on this motion, which will dismiss the 

petition, will result in a judgment against him. Petitioner has been advised that such a 

judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program,” and that “Petitioner 

understands that he may apply for costs he has incurred once his claim is dismissed 

and judgment is entered against him.” (Id. at 1.) 

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitioner must prove either 

(1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table 

– corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually

caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). 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). The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from 

ruling for petitioner based solely on his allegations unsubstantiated by medical records 

or medical opinion. 

Petitioner’s medical records do not support his allegations by a preponderance of 

the evidence and he did not file a medical opinion from an expert in support of his 

allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Decision 

Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie

case of entitlement to compensation.

CONCLUSION

This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter 

judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Daniel T. Horner

 Daniel T. Horner

 Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.