# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

A. S., a minor c/o her mother, *

CHERYL HINES, * No. 15

- 868V

Guardian and personal representative, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

Petitioner, *

* Filed: March 24 , 2016

v. *

* HPV ; Tdap ; Meningococcal ;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * pain; cramps; hemorrhaging;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * decision dismissing petition.

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Peter J. Sarda

, Creech Law Firm, Raleigh, NC , for petitioner;

Heather L. Pearlman , United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for

respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION 1

Cheryl Hines filed a petition as m other and custodial guardian of A.S., minor

petitioner, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

10 through 34 (2012 )

, on August 12, 2015

. Ms. Hines alleged in her petition that

A.S. suffered pain, cramps, hemorrhaging, and in general, discomfort throughout

her body , resulting from the HPV Quadrivalent vaccine, Tdap vaccine, and

1 T he E

- Government Act

, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012 ) ( Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services) , requires that the Court post this ruling on its

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4 ).

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Meningococcal vaccines administered on August 13, 2012. The information in the

record, however, does not show entitlement to an aw ard under the Program.

I. Procedural History

On September 21, 2015, petitioner filed medical records as well as her

statement of completion and on October 28, 2015 , she filed additional medical

records . O n November 18, 2015, respondent f iled her Rule 4 report. In her report,

r espondent concluded petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by

preponde rant evidence that the HPV, Tdap , and/or meningococcal vaccines

administered to A.S. on August 13, 2012, caused any adverse reaction or injury.

On Dece mber 7, 2015, a status conference was held to discuss respondent’s

report and the additional medical records submitted by petitioner. At this time, it

was unclear how petitioner was planning to proceed with the case , specifically

whether petitioner was pr esenting a causation theory, an aggravation theory, or

both. Thus , petitioner was ordered to file an amended petition and did so on

February 16, 2016.

A status conference was held on February 24, 2016, to discuss petitioner’s

progress toward obtaining an expe rt report. Petitioner was reminded that to receive

compensation under the National Vacci ne Injury Compensation Program she must

prove A.S. suffered a Table Injury or that A.S. suffered an injury that was actually

caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa

— 1 3(a)(1)(A) and 300aa

— 11(c)(1). At this

time, the record did not contain any evidence that A.S. suffered a “Table Injury”

nor did it contain a medical expert’s opinion or other persuasive evidence that

indicated A.S.’s injuries are caused by the vaccines

. Petitioner was ordered to file

a medical expert report by March 25, 2016.

On March 17, 2016, petitioner filed a status report and stated she was unable

to obtain a medical expert to testify that A.S.’s complaints are proximately caused

by the vaccine s

. In addition, petitioner stated that further investigation into this

claim would not be fruitful. T hi s document responds to petitioner’s conclusion

.

II. Analysis

To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation

Pr ogram (hereinafter “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 her vaccination, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually3

caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa

- 13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa

- 11(c)(1). An

examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that A.S. suffered a “Table

Injury.” Thus, Ms. Hines is necessarily pursuing a causation

- in

- fact claim.

Under the Act, a petitioner 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. § 300aa

- 13(a)(1). In

this case, beca use the medical records do not support Ms. Hines’ claim on behalf

of A.S. , a medical opinion must be offered in support. Ms. Hines , however, stated

she was unable to locate a medical expert and thus will no longer investigate her

claim

.

Accordin gly, it is clear from the record in this case that Ms. Hines has failed

to demonstrate either that A.S. suffered a “Table Injury” or that A.S.’s injur ies

were “actually caused” by the vaccination s

. She has also not established a significant aggravation th eory. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient

proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman , at (202) 357

-
635 0

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master