# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 1004V

Filed: Jul y 30 , 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

IRWIN REICH

, *

* Special Master Hamilton

- Fieldman

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petitioner ’ s Motion for Dismissal

* Decision; Influenza ( “ Flu ” )

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccination; Guillain Barr é

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Syndrome.

*

Respondent. *

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

Nora Constance Marino

, Nora Constance Marino, Esq., Great Neck, NY, for Petitioner

Adriana Teitel , United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION 1

On October 16, 2014

, Irwin Reich (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under

the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 1 et seq. (2006)

(“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that an Influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine 2 administered on October

25 , 2012 caused him to suffer from Guillain Barr é Syndrome

. Petition (“Pet.”) at 1

- 3

. The

undersigned now finds that the information in the record does not show entitle ment to an award

under the Program.

On July 29 , 2015

, Petitioner filed a Motion for Dismissal

. According to the M otion,

“[a]n investigation of the f acts and law regarding this matter has dem onstrated that with resp ect

to the standards set forth herein, it will be difficult for petitioner to prove that he is entitled to

compensatio n pursuant to the requirements of the Vaccine Program. Under these circumstances,

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,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, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116

Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 and note (2006)). In accordance with

Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party 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,

such mater ial will be deleted from public access.

2 Petitioner also alleged that a Shingle [s] vaccination caused his injury. This is not a covered

vaccine under the Vaccine Act. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a).2

it would be unreasonable to proceed in this C ourt .” Motion, at 1

- 2. Petitioner further state s that

he understands that a dismissal decision will result in a judgment against him , and that such a

judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program.

To receive compensation und er the Vaccine Act , P etit ion er must prove either 1) that he

suffered a “Table Injury”

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

– corresponding

to one of his vaccination s , or 2) that he suffere d 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 he suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical

expert’s opinio n 3 or any other persuasive evidence indicating that his injuries were caused by a

vaccination

.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner m ay not be awarded compensation based on the

petitioner’s claims alone . Rather, the petition must be supported by either me dical 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. Although an expert ’ s opinion was offered in this case, it did not support

causation. See Pet. Ex. 6.

Therefore, the only alternative remains to DENY this petition

. Thus, this case is

dism issed for insufficient proof. In the absence of a motion for review, t he Clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master

3 Petitioner filed an expert report on July 16, 2015; however, Petitioner ’ s expert did not opine in

favor of causation. Pet. Ex. 6, ECF No. 23.