# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 03-2765V Filed: January 15, 2014

Not to be Published

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PATRICIA CARROLL and PHILIP * CARROLL, parents and natural * guardians of STC, a minor * Autism; Petitioner’s Motion for a * Decision Dismissing the Insufficient Petitioners, * Petiti on; Proof of Causation; Vaccine v. * Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION 1

On November 21, 2003, petitioners filed a Pe tition for Vaccine Compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 2 alleging that various vaccinations injured STC. The information in th e record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Fe deral Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 20 5, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Va ccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify

and move to delete medical or ot her information, that satisfies th e criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a mo tion for redaction must include a proposed redacted

decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Ch ildhood 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 references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2 On January 2, 2014, petitioners moved for a decision on the merits of the petition, acknowledging that insufficient ev idence exists to demonstrate entitlement to compensation.

To receive compensation under the Program, pe titioners must prove either 1) that STC suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury fallin g within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to one of STC’s vaccinations, or 2) that STC su ffered 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 STC suffered a “Table Inju ry.” Further, the re cord does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicat ing that STC’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.

Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on the petitioners’ claims alone. Rather , the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-13( a)(1). In this ca se, because there are insufficient medical records supporting petitioners’ claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support. Petitioners, however, have offered no such opinion.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioners have failed to demonstrate either that STC suffered a “Table Injury” or that STC’s injuries were “actually caused” by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/George L. Hastings, Jr. George L. Hastings, Jr. Special Master