# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-978V Filed: September 12, 2019

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GEORGE KENNEDY, * UNPUBLISHED
* Petitioner, *
*

v. * Dismissal; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; * Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Randall Knutson, Esq., Knutson & Casey Law Firm, Ma nkato, MN, for petitioner. Christine Becer, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent

.

DECISION 1

Roth, Special Master:

On July 20, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 2 alleging that he developed a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. On September 12, 2019, petitioner filed a Motion for Dismissal Decision requesting that his case
be dismissed. ECF No. 34.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designate d “unpublished,” it will neve rtheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s
inclusion of certain kinds of confidential informa tion. 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 financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of wh ich would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id

.

2 The Program comprises 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-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual section referen ces will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2 To receive compensation under the Program, pe titioner must prove either 1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury fallin g within the Vaccine Inju ry Table – corresponding to his vaccination, or 2) that he suffered an in jury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of th e record did not uncover any evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injur y.” Further, the record does not contain persua sive evidence indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused or in a ny way vaccine-related.

Under the Act, petitioner may not be given a Pr ogram award based solely on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be suppor ted by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient medical records supporting petitioner’s claim, a me dical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioner, however, has offered no such opinion that supports a finding of entitlement.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to demonstrate either that he suffered a “Table Injury” or that his injuries were “actually caused” by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insuffic ient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master