# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0404 V

UNPUBLISHED

THOMAS BEDELL, an i n competent, by and through his parent, natural guardian a nd legal guardian,

CHRISTINE BEDELL

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: September 25, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Petitioner ’ s Motion for a Decision Dismissing the Petitio n ; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA , for petitioner.

Heather Lynn Pearlman , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION 1

On March 19, 2019

, Christine Bedell filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 ( the
“Vaccine Act” ) , on behalf of her son, Thomas Bede ll

. Petitioner alleges that her son
suffered Guillain

- Barré Syndrome ( “ GBS ” ) after receiving an influenza vaccine on August 15, 2013 . Petition at 1

.

On September 25, 2020

, P etitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition, acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of w hich would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

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

- 6 60, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2

compensation

. ECF No. 32

. 3 Petitioner acknowledged in her motion that neither she nor Respondent has been unable to obtain “ any r ecord confirming vaccine administration

. ”

Id . at ¶ 1

. “ Without this supporting documentation, Petitioner understands that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program

. ” Id.

Petitioner indicated that s he “understands that a decision against her by the S pe cial

Master dismissing her petition will result in a judgement against her . . . [and] has been advised that such a judgment wil l end all of her rights in the Vaccine P rogram.” Id . at ¶

3

.

To receive compensation under the Program, P etitioner must prove that her son

received a vaccin e covered by the Vaccine Program and then suffered either 1) a “Table Injury”

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

– corresponding to a covered vaccine, or 2) an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1)

. Examination of the record shows ther e is no evidence that P etitioner

received an influ enza vaccine on August 1 5, 2013 as alleged

.

Under the V accine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical records or by a medical opinion. § 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain

medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that P etitioner received or was injured by a vaccine cov ered by the Vaccine Program

. For these reasons, and in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), P etitioner’s claim for compensation is DENIED and

t his case is DISMISSED for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

3 Although Petitioner filed her motion using the CM/ECF event for a motion to dismiss pursu ant to Vaccine

Rule 21(a) , it is clear that Petitioner intended to file a motion to dismiss which would result in a judgem ent.

Petitioner altered the docket text to include the de sc ription “ MOTION to Dismiss ”

, and the title of her motio n is “ Petitioner ’ s Motion for Decision Dismissing Petition. ” Furthermore, in the motion, Petitioner acknowledges that her request will result in a decision (as opposed to an order concluding proceedings) and later judgement which she can reject to preserve any future civil claim.

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filin g of notice renouncing the right to seek review.