In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-459V 

Filed: April 12, 2017 

Unpublished 

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

SANDRA E. WILLIAMS, Trustee of the * 

Williams Family Trust, on behalf of her * 

Deceased husband * 

RICHARD WILLIAMS, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Dismissing Her Petition; Influenza (“Flu”) 

v. * Vaccine; Guillain Barre Syndrome 

* (“GBS”); Insufficient Proof of Causation; 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Vaccine Act Entitlement; 

HUMAN SERVICES, * Denial Without Hearing 

 * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner. 

Colleen Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On April 11, 2016, Sandra Williams, trustee on behalf of the Williams Family 

Trust, on behalf of her deceased husband Richard Williams (“petitioner”) filed a petition 

for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 

§300aa-10, et seq.

2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”).3 Petitioner alleges that Mr. 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it 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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 

3 The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters. 
2 

Williams suffered from Guillain Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza 

(“flu”) vaccination he received on October 7, 2014. Petition at ¶¶ 1-11. The information 

in the record does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. 

 On April 6, 2017, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing the petition, 

acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to 

compensation. (ECF No. 26). “[a]lthough [petitioner] feels very strongly about what she 

witnessed with Richard Williams, an investigation of the facts and science supporting 

the case as medical records have been received and two experts consulted has 

demonstrated to Petitioner that she will likely be unable to prove that she is entitled to 

compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 2. Petitioner further stated that she 

“understands that a decision by the [undersigned] dismissing her petition will result in a 

judgment against her. She has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her 

rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id. 

 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 a covered vaccine, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually 

caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the 

record does not disclose any evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, 

the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence 

indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused. 

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on 

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

medical records or by a medical opinion. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not 

contain medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee 

was injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, and in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), 

petitioner’s claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for 

insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

4

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master 

 

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.