# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-208V (Unpublished)

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

SAMMY SATTERWHITE,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Special Master Katherine E. Oler

Filed: June 12, 2020

Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision; Dismissal of Petition; Vaccine Act.

Justin A. Smith , Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher & Perry Law Firm, Longview, TX, for Petitioner

Heather L. Pearlman , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION DISMISSING CAS E FOR INSUFFICIENT PROOF 1

On February 6, 2019, Sammy Satterwhite (“Pet itioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 alleging that he suffered from “injuries, including Guillain Barre [Syndrome]” (“GBS”) fo llowing the influenza vaccination he received on October 2, 2017. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner fi led a Statement of Completion on May 6, 2019. ECF No. 7.

Petitioner filed several medical and chiropractic records in suppor t of his claim. Exs. 1-8.

Petitioner also filed two a ffidavits. Exs. 9 and 10.

1 Although this Decision has been fo rmally designated “not to be publis hed,” it will nevertheless be posted

on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Ac t of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be availabl e to anyone with access to the internet . As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, th e parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b) , 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 substa nce 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 Decisi on in its present form will be available. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the Nati onal Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).2 On May 7, 2019, I held a status conference in which I informed Mr. Smith that under the current set of facts, I could not find entitlement to compensation where onset of GBS is within

hours of vaccination. See Order of May 7, 2019, ECF No. 8. I suggested to Mr. Smith that he speak with his client to discuss f iling a motion to dismiss the petition. Id. Mr. Smith requested thirty days to do so. On July 3, 2019, Petitioner filed a status repor t indicating that he would like to proceed with his claim. See Status Report of July 3, 2020, ECF No. 10.

On February 27, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, indicating he believed that this case was “not appropriate fo r compensation under the terms of the Act.” Resp.’s Rep. at 2, ECF No. 16. Respondent argued that Petitioner had not offered a “reputable medical or scientific theory showing that the flu vaccine was the cause of his condition.” Id . at 7. On the same day, I issued a Non-PDF Order instructing Petitioner to file a status report indi cating how he would like to proceed in light of Respondent’s Report. See Non-PDF Order of February 27, 2020. On May 28, 2020, Petitioner filed a status report indicati ng that he intended to dismiss his case. See Status Report of May 28, 2020, ECF No. 19.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on J une 11, 2020, indicating “Petitioner no longer desire[s] to prosecute his claim against the Secretary of Health and Human Services and respectfully requests the Court en ter an order of dismissal.” Pe t’r’s Mot., ECF No. 20 at 1.

To receive compensation under the Vaccine Pr ogram, a petitioner must prove either (1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an in jury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to his vaccination, or (2) that he suffered an inju ry that was actually caused by a

vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Moreover, unde r the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award ba sed solely on his claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opini on of a competent medical expert. § 13(a)(1). In this case, however, there is insufficient eviden ce in the record for Petitioner to meet his burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succ eed and, in accordance with his motion, must be dismissed. § 11(c)(1)(A).

Thus, this case is DISMISSED for insuffici ent proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine E. Oler

Katherine E. Oler Special Master