# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 3

- 179 V

(Not to be published)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

DECISION 1

On March 8

, 2 0 1 3, a petitio n for Vaccine Compensation was filed in this case as part of

the National Vaccine Injury Comp ensation Program

. 2 The petition alleged that the i nfluenza

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 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)). 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) perm its 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 Natio nal

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. ' 30 0aa.v accine Michael Smith received on April 14, 2012 caused him to suffer Guillain

- Barr é

syndrome

.

After about a year of gathering records

, P etitioner 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 indic ating 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