# In the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: December 15, 2020

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

KERSTINA ALEXANDER

, on behalf * No. 18

- 770 V

of her minor child, M.A.

, *

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof; Hepatitis B

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Vaccine; Pneumococcal Vaccine (“Prevnar

* 13”); DTP

- b Vaccine (“Pentacel”); Rotavirus

Re spondent. * Vaccine; Death

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

Jonathan J. Svitak , Shannon Law Group, Woodbridge, IL, for Petitioner

. Voris E. Johnson , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.



### DISMISSAL 1

On May 31, 2018

, Kerstina Alexander (“Petitioner”)

, on behalf of her minor child, M.A.,

filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 2

(“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged th at

M.A. died due to a Hepatitis B vaccine he received on February 2, 2016; a Hepatitis B vaccine,

pneumococcal vaccine (“Prevnar 13”), DTP

- b vaccine (“Pentacel”), an d a Rotavirus vaccine he

received on March 23, 2016; and Prevnar 13 , Pentacel, and Rotavirus vaccines he received on May

26, 2016. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement

to an award under the Program.

On December 2, 2 020 , Petitioner filed an unopposed motion for a decision dismissing h er

petition. See ECF No. 4 0 . In h er motion, Petitioner conceded that “ [a ]n investigation of the facts

and science supporting [sic] has demonstrated to the Petit ioner that she will be unable to prove that

she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program. ” Id. at 1. She continued, “ [i] n these

circumstances, to proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the

1 This D ecision shall be posted 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). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet . In

accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 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 D ecision. If, upon review, the I agree that the identified material fits within the

requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755 (“the Vaccine Act” or “Act”).

Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42

U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2

Court, the R espondent, and the Vaccine Program.” Id. Respondent had no objection to Petitioner’s

motion. Id. at 2.

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 the vaccination, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually ca used by a vaccine. See §§

13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that M.A.

suffered a Table i njury. Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence that M.A.’s death

was caused by any or all of the vaccine s he received.

Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on their claims

alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by medical records or the opinion of a competent

physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the medical records are insufficient to prove Petitioner’s claim,

and

, at this time, Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore,

this case must be dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment

accordingly

. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Herbrina D. Sanders

Herbrina D. Sanders

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of a notice renouncing

the right to seek review.