In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1018V 

(Not to be Published) 

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

JOHN SUMMERS, * Filed: June 17, 2015 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision 

 v. * Dismissing the Petition; Vaccine Act 

 * Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. * 

 *

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

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Camille Collett, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

DECISION DISMISSING CASE1

On October 20, 2014, John Summers filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).

2

 Petitioner alleged that 

the hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines administered to him on February 14, 2014 caused him to 

develop reactive arthritis, myalgia and arthralgia, and that these illnesses ultimately continue to 

this day. See Pet. at 1 (ECF No. 1). 

 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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 (2002)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To 

do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that each party has fourteen days within which to request 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). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the public. Id. 

2

 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 

of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 through 34 (2006)) 

[hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act. 
2

On February 3, 2015, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) reporting indicating that this case was 

not appropriate for compensation. Resp’t’s Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 12) at 1. Respondent argued 

that “[P]etitioner has failed to offer a reputable scientific or medical theory establishing that 

hepatitis A and/or hepatitis B vaccines can cause reactive arthritis, myalgia, and arthralgia” and 

also failed to show a “logical sequence of cause and effect.” Id. at 9. 

Petitioner has now filed a motion seeking dismissal of this case. Pet’r’s Mot. for Decision 

Dismissing his Pet., dated June 17, 2015 (ECF No. 16). In that motion, Petitioner indicates that 

“[a]n investigation of facts and science supporting his case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that 

he will be unable to prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1. 

To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1) 

that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –

corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused 

by a vaccine. See §§13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record, however, does not 

uncover any evidence that Mr. Summers suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not 

contain sufficient persuasive evidence establishing that the alleged injury that he experienced 

could have been caused by the vaccination(s) received and Petitioner himself has acknowledged 

he possesses no contrary evidence. 

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely 

on her 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, there is insufficient evidence in the record 

for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and must 

be dismissed. §11(c)(1)(A). 

 

Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment 

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master