1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: December 21, 2018

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

IOLA SYKES, *

* No. 17-716V

Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders

*

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision; Optic Neuritis; TetanusAND HUMAN SERVICES, * Diphtheria-acellular-Pertussis (“TDaP”)

 * Vaccine; Dismissal; Insufficient Proof

 Respondent. *

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

DECISION1

On May 31, 2017, Iola Sykes (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Program” or “Act”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 

-34 (2012).2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered from Optic Neuritis as a result of the TetanusDiphtheria-acellular-Pertussis (“TDaP”) vaccination she received on September 6, 2016. Petition, 

ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award under 

the Program. 

On December 17, 2018, Petitioner submitted a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her 

petition. ECF No. 46. In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “[a]n investigation of the facts and 

science supporting this case, including consultation with an appropriate qualified neuroopthalmologist, has demonstrated to Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled 

to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. Therefore, Petitioner requested that the 

undersigned issue a decision dismissing her case. Id. Respondent did not object to Petitioner’s 

Motion. Id. at 2. 

 

 

1 This decision shall be posted 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). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

Internet. 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 material 

will be deleted from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–660, 100 Stat. 3755.
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 the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 

13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that Petitioner 

suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain evidence that the injury alleged by 

Petitioner was caused by the TDaP vaccination.

Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims

alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent 

physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s claim, 

and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, in the absence 

of evidence to support Petitioner’s claim that her vaccination caused her alleged injury, this case 

must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Herbrina D. Sanders

 Herbrina D. Sanders

Special Master

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.