# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 148 V

(Not to be P ublished)

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

TAYLOR K

. FRADY

, on behalf of her *

deceased minor child

, A.F

., * Special Master Corcoran

*

* Filed: September 20 , 2017

Petitioner, *

v. * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision ;

* Dismissal of Petition; Vaccine

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Act; Denial Without Hearing.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Patricia Ann Finn

, Patricia Finn, P.C.

, Piermont

, NY , for Petitioner.

Camille M. Collett

, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D

. C

. for Respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING CASE FOR INSUFFICIENT PROOF 1

On February 1, 2016

, Taylor Frady f iled a petition on behalf of her minor child, A.F.

, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 The Petition

alleg e s that the Hepatitis B, dTap, IPV, HIB, PCV, and ROTA vaccinations received on September

22, 2014

, caused A.F.’s death. See Petition (“Pet.”) at 1.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the

Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet . As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.

Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any

information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financia l 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 R ule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available.

Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660,

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”)

. Individual sec tion references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix)

.2

After filing med ical records in early March 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of

time to file additional medical records and the Joint S tatement of C ompletion

. See Motion, dated

Mar. 8

, 2016 (ECF No. 10 ). Thereafter, Petitioner obtained and filed add itional medical records in

June 2016

. The parties filed a Joint Statement of C ompletion on June 15, 2016, and Respondent

filed her Rule 4(c) Report on August 15, 2016 , contesting Petitioner’s right to damages

.

O n September 8 , 2016, I issued an order setting forth my views on the merits of this case.

In it, I explained to Petitioner that similar theories linking vaccines to infant de aths categorized as

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (“ SIDS ”) have rarely been successful in the Vaccine P rogram. See

Order, dated Sept. 8, 2016 (ECF No. 16)

. I also informed the parties that I had serious doubts that

Petitioner’s claim would be successful in light of other special masters ’ recent decisions

.

Therefore , I directed Petitioner to show cause as to why this claim should not be dismissed.

Petitioner fi led her brief, along with additional medical records, on December 16, 2016 and

Respondent submitted a response on February 16, 2017.

O n August 14 , 2017, after review of the parties’ submissions, I issued an order directing

Petitioner to file a motion for ruling on the record, a joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal, or a

status report indicating that she would retain an expert

. See Order dated, Aug. 14, 2017 (ECF No.

23). I informed the parties that I remained unpersuaded that this case differs fro m SIDS cases that

have been dismissed by other special masters, absent a new theory or stronger scientific evidence

,

and I doubted the case’s reasonable basis as a result . Petitioner thereafter fil ed a motion to dismiss

on September 19 , 2017 acknowledging that, after consideratio n of the facts and law, she did not

expect to be able to establish entitlement in this case . ECF No. 24

.

To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1)

that she suffered a “Table Injury”

– i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Ta ble

– corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused

by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). A n examination of the record, however, doe s

not uncover any evidence that A.F. suffered a Table injury. Moreover, u nder the Vaccine Ac t, a

petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on her claims alone. Rather, the

petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical

expert . Section 13(a)(1). In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for

Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Petitioner ’ s claim therefore cannot succeed and must be

dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).

Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.3 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Special Master