1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed : November 24, 2020

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

URSULA REHFELD * U n published

*

Petitioner, * No. 1 6

- 1048V

*

v. * Special Master Gowen

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Insufficient Proof

. AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

Robert Hanreck, Robert J. Hanreck, P.A., for petitioner.

Catherine E. Stolar, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DISMISSAL 1

On August 24, 2016, Ursula Rehfeld (“petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program or Program). 2

Petitioner alleges that she suffered from anaphylactic shock, atrial fibrillation, weakness and

gastrointestinal disorders as a result of receiving the combined tetanus

- diphtheria and pertussis

(“Tdap”) and inactivated polio vaccine (“Repevax”) on August 2 8, 2013. Petition (ECF No. 1).

The information in the record does not establish entitlement to compensation.

On November 24, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Motion (“Pet. Mot.”) (ECF No. 109). Pet itioner stated that an investigation of the

facts and science supporting her case has demonstrated that she will be unable to prove that she

is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program. Pet. Mot. at ¶ 11. I n these circumstances, to

1 P ursuant to the E

- Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), b ecause this opinion contains a

reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of

Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7

. This means the

opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion i s posted on the court’s

website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting redaction “of any information furnished by that party:

(1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that

includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the

opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the

court’s website without any changes. Id.

2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is se t forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine

Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 1 to

- 34 (2012)

(Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vacci ne Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §

300aa.2

proceed further would be unreasonable and would waste the resources of the Court, the

Respondent and the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 2. Additionally, petitioner understands that a

decision dismissing her petition will result in judgment against her and she has been advis ed by

counsel that a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner

understands that her attorney may apply for fees and costs once her case is dismissed and

judgment is entered against her. Id. at ¶ 4. Respondent ex pressly reserves the right, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e), to question the good faith and reasonable basis of the claim and to

oppose, if appropriate, the application for fees and costs. Id.

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, petitione rs have the burden of proving

either: (1) that the vaccinee suffered a “Table Injury,” i.e., an injury beginning within a specified

period of time following receipt of a corresponding vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (a

“Table injury”) or (2) tha t the vaccinee suffered an injury that was caused

- in

- fact by a covered

vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A); 11(c)(1). In this case, petitioner was not alleging a Table Injury and

therefore, must demonstrate the vaccine was the cause

- in

- fact of her alleged injuries. To satisfy

her burden of proving causation in fact, petitioner must show by preponderant evidence: “(1)) a

medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of

cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the r eason for the injury; and (3) a showing of

a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, the Vaccine Program may not award compensation

based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petitioner must support the claim with either

medical records or the opinion of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the

medical records are insufficient to establis h entitlement and petitioner ’s experts have not

presented opinions that support a finding of vaccine causation under Althen.

Thus, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED for insufficient

proof. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas L. Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master

3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule

11(a).