In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: July 5, 2016)

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

MICHELLE HANDROW, *

* No. 15-1373V

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 PETITION1

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 Syndrome (“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 July 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 prove 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 will terminate all of her rights in the Vaccine 

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

thus intend to elect to reject the Vaccine 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 Court 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 within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding 

to a vaccination, or 2) that she 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 did not uncover any 

evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury,” nor does petitioner allege that she suffered a 

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

petitioner’s injury was caused by the vaccinations she 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 this case, because the medical 

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

offered in support. However, petitioner has 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 vaccinations. 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