In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1236V

Filed: July 12, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

FERNANDA DOXZON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

 

Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

On August 19, 2019, petitioner filed a claim under the National Childhood 

Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that she suffered GuillainBarre Syndrome (“GBS”), significant aggravation of her Neuromyelitis Optica (“NMO”), 

and neurological injuries as a result of her October 28, 2016 influenza (“flu”) 

vaccination. (ECF No. 1.) On July 15, 2020, respondent filed his Rule 4 report, 

recommending against compensation. (ECF No. 17.) 

On July 7, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition. 

(ECF No. 30.) Petitioner indicated that “[p]etitioner is unable to retain an expert in order 

to support causation-in-fact, and will therefore be unable to prove that [she] is entitled to 

compensation in the Vaccine Program,” and that “to proceed further would be 

unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the respondent and Vaccine 

Program.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner further stated that “[p]etitioner understands that a 

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will 

be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government 

Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact 

medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be 

redacted from public access.

Special Master Horner

Petitioner’s Motion for Decision 

Dismissing Petition; Influenza 

(flu) vaccine; Guillain-Barre 

Syndrome (GBS); Neuromyelitis 

Optica (NMO); Significant 

Aggravation
2

decision by the Special Master dismissing [her] petition will result in a judgment against 

[him]. [Petitioner] has been advised that such a judgment will end all of his rights in the 

Vaccine Program. Petitioner understands that she may apply for costs once his case is 

dismissed and judgment is entered against her.” (Id. at 1.) 

To receive compensation in the Vaccine 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 covered vaccine, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was 

actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). To satisfy the

burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1) 

a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical 

sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the 

injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and 

injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 

2005). To demonstrate a significant aggravation of a preexisting condition, petitioner

must additionally demonstrate aggravation by showing: (1) her condition prior to the 

administration of the vaccine, (2) her current condition, and (3) whether her current 

condition constitutes a “significant aggravation” of the condition prior to the vaccination. 

See Loving v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 135, 144 (Fed. Cl. 2009). 

The Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), prohibits the undersigned from ruling for 

petitioner based solely on her allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or 

medical opinion. 

Petitioner’s medical records do not support her allegations by a preponderance 

of the evidence and she did not file a medical opinion from an expert in support of her

allegations. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS petitioner’s Motion for Decision 

Dismissing Petition and DISMISSES this petition for failure to establish a prima facie

case of entitlement to compensation.

CONCLUSION

This case is now DISMISSED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter 

judgment in accordance with this decision.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Daniel T. Horner

 Daniel T. Horner

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.