1 

# In the Unit ed 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 ; Tetanus



### AND HUMAN SERVICES, * D iphtheria

- acellular

- Pertussis (“TDaP ”)



### * V accine ; Dismissal; Insufficient Proof



### Respondent. *

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

DECISION 1

On May 31, 2017

, Iola Sykes (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“P rogram” or “Act” ). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 t o

- 34 (2012). 2 Petitioner alleged that she suffered from Optic Neuritis as a result of the Tetanus

D iphtheria

- acellular

- Pertussis (“TDaP ”) vaccination she received on September 6, 2016 . Petition,

ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does not show entitl ement 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 m otion, Petitioner conceded that “[a] n investigation of the facts and

science supporting this case, in cluding consultation with an appropriate qualified neuro

opthalmologist, 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

unde rsigned 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 Decisi on 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 wit h 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 di d not uncover any evidence that Petitioner

suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain evidence tha t 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 record s 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 Petition er’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.