# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1393 V

Filed: September 21 , 2020

U NPUBLISHED

LINDA JOY DAVIS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition; Shoulder Injury related to Vaccine

Administration (“SIRVA”); Pneumococcal Vaccination; insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing; Special Processing Unite (“SPU”)

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX , for petitioner.

Claudia Barnes Gangi , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION 1

Corcoran

, Chief Special Master:

On September 11, 2019 , Linda Joy Davis filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), 42 U.S.C. §300aa

10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury

related to vaccine admini stration ( “ SIRVA ” ) after receiving a Prevnar

- 13 pneumococcal vaccination on September 22, 2016 . Petit ion at 1

.

1 Because this D ecision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be posted 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 ame nde d at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012 ))

. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner s ha ve 14 day s to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon

review

, I agree that the identified material fits withi n this definition, that material will be removed 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).On August 31, 2020, Petitioner moved for a decision dismissing the petition

, specifically indicating she no longer wants to pursue her claim . ECF No . 21. Petitioner explained that she had been diagnosed with lung cancer, and that she wished to “ focus on her lung cancer treatment and not worry further about her SIRVA claim.” Id. at 1. Further, Petitioner qualified for Medicaid and does not want to jeop ardize her Medicaid status with any recovery related to her vaccine injury. Id. Petitioner “understands that a decision by the Chief Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a judgment against her. [She] has been advised that such a judgment w ill end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program.” Id

. at 2. The M otion further stated that Respondent “ reserves the right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e), to question the good faith and reasonable basis of her claim and to oppose, if appropriate, the application for costs. ” Respondent otherwise does not oppose this motion

.

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that

he suffered a “Table Injury”

– i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Ta ble

–

corres ponding to one of his vacc inations, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the record

, however, does not disclose that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Furt her, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive eviden ce 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 clai ms alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical

records or by a medical opinion. Section 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, in ac cordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A), petitioner ’ s claim for compensation is d enied and t his case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk s hall enter judgment accordingly

. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

3 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.