### REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2019 OSM U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

# 3Jn tbe Wntteb $)tates (!Court ofjf 

# eberal (!Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-628V 

### Filed: October 1, 2019 

# ************* * S.A. andH.A., Parents of A.A., on behalf of A.A., 

### Petitioners,

V.


### SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. 

# * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Pro se, Evanston, IL, for petitioners. 

### * * * 

### * * 

### * * * 

### * * * Dismissal; Hepatitis B ("Hep B") RotaTeq, Diphtheria-Tetanus-AcellularPertussis ("DTaP"), Haemophilus Influenzae Type B ("Hib") Vaccines; Inactivated Polio Vaccine; Immune Dysfunction; Reactive Airway Disease; Asthma

AltheaDavis, Esq., U.S. Dept. ofJustice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION1 Roth, 

### Special Master:
On April 22, 2019, petitioners filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("the Program"),2 on behalf oftheir minor child, A.A. 

### Petitioners alleged that the hepatitis B ("Hep B"), Prevnar 13, RotaTeq, diphtheria-tetanusacellular pertussis ("DTaP"), inactivated polio vaccine ("IPV"), and haemophilus influenzae type B ("Hib") vaccines A.A. 

### received on April 8, 2016 caused A.A. 

### to develop immune dysfunction, reactive airway disease, and asthma. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. On September 9, 2019, petitioners filed a request for withdrawal and censorship. ECF No. 19. In this request, petitioners requested that their case be

1Although this Decision has been formally designated "unpublished," it will nevertheless be posted on the Court ofFederal Claims's website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means theDecision will be availableto anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may objectto the Decision's inclusion ofcertain kinds ofconfidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule l8(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction "ofany information furnished bythat 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 ofwhich would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy." Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id.

2TheProgram comprisesPart2 oftheNational Childhood VaccineInjuryAct of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter "Vaccine Act" or "the Act"). Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa ofthe Act.dismissed and that A.A.'s name be censored from the public record. 

### Id. This request will be interpreted as a Motion for a Dismissal Decision. After a dismissal decision is issued, petitioners will have 14 days to file a Motion for Redaction explaining why redaction ofA.A.'s initials is warranted, if necessary. Petitioners are advised that the only information that will be publicly available is this dismissal decision.

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioners must prove either 1) that A.A. suffered a "Table Injury"

- i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table- corresponding to his vaccination, or 2) thatA.A. suffered an injury that was actually causedby a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(l)(A) and 1l(c)(l). Thepetitionin this mattermay have not beentimely filed pursuantto 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(l), which requires that petitions be filed within three years ofthe date of vaccination or the first manifestation ofinjury. The record indicates A.A. received the allegedly causal vaccination on April 8, 2016 but the petition was not formally filed until April 22, 2019

- approximately 14 days out oftime. Given the vague nature ofA.A.'s alleged injuries, it is unclear
as to when onset ofthese injuries began. Absent clear evidence of onset, petitioners' statute of limitations deadline is based on the date ofvaccination. Further, an examination ofthe record did notuncover any evidencethatpetitioner suffered a "TableInjury."Therecord also doesnotcontain persuasive evidence indicating that petitioner's alleged injury was vaccine-caused or in any way vaccine-related.

Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on the petitioners' claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinionofacompetentphysician.§ 13(a)(l). In this case, becausethere are insufficientmedical records supporting petitioner's claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioners, however, have offered no such opinion that supports a finding ofentitlement. Accordingly, it is unclear from the record, but it appears that the petition was not timely filed pursuantto 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(l). Additionally, petitioners have failed to demonstrate either that A.A. suffered a "Table Injury" or that A.A.'s injuries were "actually caused" by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissedfor insufficientproofand failure to file a claimwithin the statutorily prescribed timeframe. The Clerk shall enterjudgment accordingly.

The Clerk's Office is directed to send this decision to petitioners at the following address via certified and regular mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

nA TE, 

### 1 

# o/i/;!otg

l

2

# ~ 

# /**~**

# e

_ OQu>- • Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master