1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: October 21, 2015)

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

SAMUEL GRAY, *

* No. 13-880V

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Special Master Roth

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza Vaccine; Table Injury;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Dyspnea; Neurological Symptoms;

* Insufficient Proof

Respondent. *

*

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

Verne E. Paradie, Jr., Maglio, Paradie Sherman Walker and Worden, Lewiston, ME for 

petitioner.

Gordon E. Shemin, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent. 

DECISION1

Roth, Special Master:

On November 5, 2013, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [“the Program”],2alleging that the influenza 

vaccine he received on October 21, 2010 caused him to suffer from Dyspnea and other 

neurological symptoms. The information in the record, however, does not support entitlement to 

an award under the Program. On January 24, 2014, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing 

this petition.

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 Table – corresponding 

to his vaccination, or 2) that petitioner suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this 

decision 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 amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In 

accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner have 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 decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits 

within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.

2 The Program comprises 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-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, 

individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 
2

See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence 

that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain persuasive 

evidence indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.

Under the Act, 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. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because there are insufficient 

medical records supporting petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion must be offered in support. 

Petitioner, however, has offered no such opinion that supports a finding of entitlement.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to 

demonstrate either that he suffered a “Table Injury” or that petitioner’s injuries were “actually 

caused” by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall 

enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Mindy Michaels Roth

 Mindy Michaels Roth

 Special Master