DECISION DISMISSING CASE1

BRIAN H. CORCORAN, Special Master.

On October 26, 2015, Louai Salim filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the "Vaccine Program").2 Mr. Salim alleged that he experienced medical problems related to immune system dysfunction as a result of the vaccinations he received in November 2012 in Kuwait, while working as a translator employed by an independent contractor for the U.S. Army.

Respondent moved to dismiss the case on December 22, 2015. Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) ("Mot."). Respondent argued, among other things, that Mr. Salim (who unquestionably did not receive the relevant vaccinations within the United States) could not meet the statutory requirements of Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(II), because he was neither a member of the Armed Forces nor an "employee" of the United States, and therefore was not entitled by statute to bring a claim. Mot. at 2-3 (citing § 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(II)). In response, Petitioner argued that in fact he did constitute an "employee" if appropriate governing law were applied. Jan. 19, 2016, Opposition (ECF No. 14) at 6-11.

After the matter had been fully briefed, I held a status conference, and thereafter ordered the parties to obtain copies of the relevant employment contracts — both between Petitioner and his immediate employer (the independent contractor), as well as between the contractor and the Government — so that information bearing on Petitioner's employment status could be used to resolve the dispute. See Mar. 14, 2016, Minute Order. Over the next two months, Petitioner obtained the requested information and filed it.

Then, on June 6, 2016, Mr. Salim filed an unopposed Motion for a Decision Dismissing His Petition. ECF No.22. In it, Petitioner stated that after reviewing the contents of the discovered contracts, he had determined that he was unlikely to be able to succeed in meeting his burden of proof. Id. at 2. Petitioner also stated his understanding that the requested decision would end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at 3.3 I have reviewed the contracts relevant to the legal question at issue, and concur with Petitioner's determination that their contents do not support his allegation of federal employee status (although I also observe that the underlying legal question of how the Act defines the term "employee" was legitimately and fairly disputed by the parties regardless of the facts).

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 his 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 Petitioner suffered a "Table Injury." Further, the record does not contain sufficient persuasive evidence establishing that Petitioner could advance his claim given the locus of his vaccine administration, along with his employment status. Petitioner's claim therefore cannot succeed and must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).

Thus, this case is dismissed. The clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.