1



### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 02

- 48 V

Filed: June 1 3 , 2013

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

SHERYL SCHWARTZ, mother and *

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

* Autism; Petitioners’ Motion for a

Petitioner, * Deci sion Dismissing the Insufficient

* Petitio n; 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.

DECISION 1

Vowell, Chief Special Mas ter:

On January 17, 2002

, petitioner filed a p etition for Vaccine Compensation in the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [“the Program”], 2 alleging 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 J une 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend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 E

Government 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 h as 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 w ill be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.2

To receive compensatio n 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, petitio ner 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 med ical records supporting pe titioner’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 reco rd in this case that petitio ner 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 O RDERED.

s/ Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master