# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: August 4 , 2020

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

MARY LOU DVORAK, *

* No. 1 9

- 1544 V

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Transverse Myelitis (“TM”); Death

*

Respondent. *

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

Harrison Long

, Rawls Law Group

, Richmond

, VA , for Petitioner.

Althea Davis

, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent

.



### DISMISSAL 1

On October 3, 201 9

, Mary Lou Dvorak (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation on

behalf of her de ceased husband, Henry Dvorak

, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation

Program (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged

that Mr. Dvorak developed transverse myelitis (“ TM ”) which resulted in permanent extremity

weakness, partial paralysis, and death as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on

November 13, 2017 . Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. At this time, t he information in the record, however,

does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.

On July 2 9, 2020 , Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing her

petition. ECF No. 19 . In her motion, Petitioner indicated that “ for reasons personal to [her]...she

no longer would like to proceed with the case.” Id. at 1. Sh e continued, “to proceed any further

would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the C ourt , the respondent, and the

Vaccine Program.” Id. Respondent had no objection to Petitioner’s motion. Id.

1 This D ecision 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 I

agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be

deleted from public access.2 To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that Mr.

Dvorak suffered a “Table Injury”

— i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table

— corresponding to the vaccination, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actua lly caused by a

vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). An examination of the limited record to date did not uncover

evidence that Mr. Dvorak suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive

evidence that Mr. Dvorak’s alleged inju ry was caused by the flu vaccine.

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 submitted medical records are insufficient to prove

Petitioner’s claim, and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness.

Therefore, this case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment

accordingly

. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Herbrina D. Sanders

Herbrina D. Sanders

Special Master

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

renouncing the right to seek review.