In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-179V

(Not to be published)

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

*

WILLIAM T. SMITH, JR., as fiduciary of *

the estate of MICHAEL E. SMITH, *

* Filed: April 21, 2014

Petitioner, * 

* Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision;

v. * Dismissing the Petition for 

* Insufficient Proof of Causation; 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Vaccine Act Entitlement; Denial 

HUMAN SERVICES * Without Hearing

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Diana S. Sedar, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner

Darryl R. Wishard, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION1

On March 8, 2013, a petition for Vaccine Compensation was filed in this case as part of

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2 The petition alleged that the influenza 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post 

this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as 

amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), 

however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of 

confidential information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) permits each party 14 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 is set forth in 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.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to 

individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa.

 
vaccine Michael Smith received on April 14, 2012 caused him to suffer Guillain-Barré

syndrome. 

After about a year of gathering records, Petitioner filed a motion on April 15, 2014

seeking a decision dismissing his petition, acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to 

demonstrate entitlement to compensation.

To receive compensation under the Program, Mr. Smith must prove either 1) that Michael

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

to one of Michael’s vaccinations, or 2) that Michael 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 did not 

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

contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that the Michael’s

alleged injury was vaccine-caused.

Under the Act, a 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, it is clear from the record in this 

case that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate either that Michael suffered a “Table Injury” or that 

his injuries were “actually caused” by a vaccination. Mr. Smith has therefore failed to provide

sufficient evidence to meet his 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