# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: July 5, 2016 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

MICHELLE HANDROW

, *

* No. 15

- 1373 V

Petitioner, *

* Chief Special Master Dorsey

v. *

* DTap; Influzena; Motion to Dismiss;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Insufficient Proof.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Jerome A. Konkel , Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for petitioner.

Linda Renzi , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION 1

On November 13, 2015, Michelle Handrow (“petitioner”) filed a petition for

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that she suffers

from Complex Regional Pain Sy ndrome (“CRPS”) as a result of the DTap and influenza

vaccinations that she received on November 15, 2012. Petition at ¶ 2.

On July 1 , 2016, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss. ( “ Pet ’ r ’ s Mot. ” ) dated J uly 1, 2016

(ECF No. 18). Petitioner stated that “ [a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting her

case has demonstrated to petitioner that she will be unable to p rove that she is entitled to

compensation in the Vaccine Program. ” Pet ’ r ’ s Mot. at 1. Petitioner also stated that she

understands that a decision dismissing her decision wil l terminate all of her rights in the Vacc ine

Program. Furthermore, petitioner wished to retain her right to file a civil action in the future and

thus intend to elect to reject the V accine Program judgment.

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States C ourt of Federal Claims' website,

in accordance with the E

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

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information,

that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a

motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, she

will delete such material from public access.2

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either : 1) that she

suffered a “Table Injury”

— i.e., an injury falling withi n the Vaccine Injury Table

— corresponding

to a vaccination, or 2) that s he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§

300aa

- 13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa

- 11(c)(1). An examination of the record di d not uncover any

evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury,” n or do es petitioner allege that s he su ffered a

“Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain any pers uasi ve evidence indicating that

petitioner ’ s injury was caused by the vaccinations s he received on November 15, 2012.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based solely on

the petitioner’s claims. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by

the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa

- 13(a)(1). In th is case, because the medical

records are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be

offered in support . However, petitioner ha s not filed an expert report.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to

demonstrate either that she suffered a “Table Injury” or that her injuries were caused

- in

- fact by

one or more of her vaccination s

. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. In the

absence of a motion for review, the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora B. Dorsey

Nora B. Dorsey

Chief Special Master