1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 02-48V

Filed: June 13, 2013

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

SHERYL SCHWARTZ, mother and *

natural guardian of A.S., a minor, * 

* Autism; Petitioners’ Motion for a

Petitioner, * Decision Dismissing the Insufficient

* Petition; Proof of Causation; Vaccine

v. * Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

*

Respondent. *

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

Clifford J. Shoemaker, Esq., Shoemaker and Associates, Vienna, VA, for petitioner.

Traci R. Patton, Esq., United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On January 17, 2002, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [“the Program”],2alleging that various 

vaccinations injured her minor child A.S. The information in the record, however, does 

not show entitlement to an award under the Program. 

On June 11, 2014, petitioner moved for a decision on the merits of the petition, 

acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to 

compensation.

 

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Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 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 Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner 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, 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 Childhood 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

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that 

A.S. suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –

corresponding to one of A.S.’s vaccinations, or 2) that A.S. suffered an injury that was 

actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the 

record did not uncover any evidence that A.S. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the 

record does not contain persuasive evidence indicating that A.S.’s alleged injury was 

vaccine-caused.

Under the Act, petitioner may not be given a Program award based solely on the 

petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical 

records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because 

there are insufficient medical records supporting petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion 

must be offered in support. Petitioner, however, has offered no such opinion that 

supports a finding of entitlement.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to 

demonstrate either that A.S. suffered a “Table Injury” or that A.S.’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/ Denise K. Vowell 

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master