# 3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates <!Court ofjf 

# eberal <!Claims

* * * * * 

## * * * * * KEITH FRANCO, Petitioner,
V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 'Respondent. 

## * * * * * * * * 

## * * OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: July 5, 2019 

## * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * .* * * * 

## * No. 19-684V Special Master Sanders

Dismissal; InsufficientProof; Shingles Vaccine; LowerExtremity Wealmess; Ascending Paralysis



### Keith Franco, Pro Se, Atlanta, GA. 

### Jay MasonAll, United States Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 

### DECISION1
OnMay 8, 2019, KeithFranco ("Petitioner") filed a petitionpursuantto the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Program"). 2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012). Petitioner alleged thathe suffered from lower extremity weakness and ascending paralysis as a result ofthe shingles vaccine he received onNovember 12, 2018. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The information inthe record, however, does not show entitlementto an award underthe Program. OnJuly 2, 2019, Petitioner submitted a motionto voluntarily dismiss his petition. ECF No. 9. Inhis motion, Petitioner stated that he "voluntarilydismiss[es] all claims [he] ha[s] filed inthis action." 

### Id

1 This decision shall be posted on the website ofthe United States Court ofFederal Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). This means the Decision will be available to anyonewith access to the Internet. As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction "ofany information furnished by that party: (I) 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 ofwhich would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion ofprivacy." Vaccine Rule l8(b). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees thatthe identified material fits within the requirements ofthat provision, such material will be withheld from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease ofcitation, all"§" references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 

## REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION AUGUST 22, 2019 OSM U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

### To receive compensation underthe Program, Petitioner mustprove either (I) 

### that he suffered a "Table Injury"-i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table-corresponding to the vaccination, or (2) thathe suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. 

### See §§ 13(a)(l)(A), 1l(c)(l). Anexamination ofthe record did not uncover any evidence that Petitioner suffered a "Table Injury." Further, the record does not contain persuasive evidence that Petitioner's alleged injuries were caused by the shingles vaccine. Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely ontheir claims alone. Rather, the petitionmustbe supported by medical records orthe opinion ofa competent physician. § 13(a)(l). In this case, the medical records are insufficientto prove Petitioner's claim, and Petitioner has not filed a supportive opinion from an expert witness. Therefore, this case mustbe 

### dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk ofCourt shall enterjudgment in accordance herewith. IT IS SO ORDERED.

# ~ 

# 75- .J.v,,...Q»...._**~** 

# ~1Acru.-,

# ~~ Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master

2