# In the Unit **ed States Court of Federal Claims**

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: February 7, 2020

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

MARY HLAD

, * No. 17

- 1818V

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof; Pneumococcal

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Conjugate V accine; Miller

- Fisher S yndrome ;

* E ncephalopathy

Respondent. *

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

Maximillia n J. Muller , Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner

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



### DISMISSAL 1

On November 20, 2017

, Mary Hlad (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 2 (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42

U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that s he developed Miller

- Fisher syndrome

and encephalopathy as a result of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine s he received on February

4, 2015

. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does not show

entitlement to an award under the Program.

On October 7 , 2019, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing her

petition. ECF No. 31 . In her motion, Petitioner conceded that “ [a]n investigation of the facts

and science supporting her case has demonstrated to [ P ]etitioner that she will be unable to prove

that she is entitle d to compensation in the Vaccine Program .” Id. at 1. She continued, “ to

proceed further would be unreason able and would waste the resources of the court, the

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 I agree 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. N o. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755 (“the

Vaccine Act” or “Act”). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to

the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Respondent and the V accine P rogram. ” Id. Respondent had no objection to Petitioner’s motion.

Id.

To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that s he

suffered a “T able Injury”

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

— corresponding

to the vaccination, or (2) that s he suffered an injury that was ca used 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 persuasive evidence that

Petitioner’s alleged injury was caused by the pneumoc occal conjugate vaccine.

Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on the ir 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 opi nion from an expert witness. Therefore, 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 exp edited by the parties’ joint filing of a

notice renouncing the right to seek review.