# 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No. 16-459V Filed: April 12, 2017 Unpublished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 He r Petition; Influenza (“Flu”) v. * Vaccine; Guillain Barre Syndrome * (“GBS”); Insufficient Proof of Causation; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Vaccine Act Entitlement; HUMAN SERVICES, * D enial Without Hearing * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamant e, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner. Colleen Hartley, U.S. Depar tment 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 (“petitione r”) 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 no te (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 inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he 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 Ac t 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 Syndr ome (“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 entitlem ent to an award under the Program.

On April 6, 2017, petitioner moved fo r a decision dismissing the petition, acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to compensation. (ECF No. 26). “[a]lthough [petitioner] feels ve ry 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 fu rther 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 pet itioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further,

the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that petitioner’s alle ged injury was vaccine-caused.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, t he 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 opinio n sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee was injured by a vaccine. For these r easons, 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 sh all 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 c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.