DECISION DISMISSING CASE FOR INSUFFICIENT PROOF1

KATHERINE E. OLER, Special Master.

On March 9, 2017, Larry Thompson ("Petitioner"), filed a petition for compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("the Program"),2 alleging that he suffered from Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia Purpura ("ITP") as a result of receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis ("Tdap") vaccine on April 18, 2016. Petition ("Pet.") at 1, ECF No. 1. On that same date, Petitioner also filed an affidavit (see Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1), and three additional exhibits comprised of medical records (see Exs. 2-4, ECF Nos. 1-2 thru 1-4).

On April 21, 2017, Petitioner filed a Statement of Completion, attesting that "all of the records required by [the Vaccine Act] pertaining to the above-captioned case" were filed as of that date. See Statement of Completion, ECF No. 7. In response, the special master who was initially assigned this case issued an order on April 24, 2017, requesting that Respondent file a status report stating whether Respondent agrees that the records are complete. ECF No. 8. On September 19, 2017, Respondent filed a status report stating that his initial review indicated that the "record appears complete for purposes of filing [his] Rule 4(c) Report," and proposed a date for filing that report. ECF No. 13.

Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on November 28, 2017, recommending that compensation be denied and this case be dismissed. See Respondent's Rule 4(c) Report at 1, 7, ECF No. 16. In his Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent pointed out, among other things, that the record as of November 28, 2017, did not reflect that Petitioner had met the Vaccine Act's severity requirements set forth at § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D).3 See Id. at 6-7.

This case was transferred to my docket on December 1, 2017. ECF No. 18. On December 5, 2017, Petitioner filed a status report requesting time to file an expert report in support of his claim; I granted that request. See ECF No. 21; see also non-PDF Order of December 7, 2017. On April 2, 2018, instead of filing an expert report, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record. ECF No. 23. In that one-page motion, Petitioner referenced the four exhibits that had been filed up to that point in this case, and, without more, deemed those "records to support a ruling in favor of [P]etitioner." Respondent filed a response on April 16, 2018, stating (1) that "[P]etitioner has failed to provide preponderant evidence in support of his causation-in-fact claim," and (2) that "the record does not reflect that [P]etitioner's ITP or its sequela persisted for more than six months after the administration of his Tdap vaccine." See ECF No. 24 at 1.

I issued a Scheduling Order on July 27, 2018, informing the parties that Petitioner's motion for a ruling on the record was not in compliance with this Court's directives, as outlined in the Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Guidelines"),4 posted on the Court's website.5 ECF No. 25 at 3. Additionally, in that scheduling order, I informed the parties that the record, as it existed at that time, did not reflect that Petitioner's ITP or its sequela persisted for more than six months after the administration of his Tdap vaccine. Id. Accordingly, I ordered Petitioner to either file: 1) additional medical records and a brief articulating how Petitioner met the six-month injury requirement in this case; or 2) a motion for a dismissal decision, as articulated in the Guidelines. Id. at 4. Petitioner subsequently requested an extension of time (ECF No. 26), which I granted (see non-PDF Scheduling Order of 9/26/2018).

On October 25, 2018, Petitioner filed his present motion to dismiss this case. Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 27. In that Motion, Petitioner "moves for a decision by the Special Master dismissing his case," stating that "[a]n investigation of the 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. A member of my staff communicated with counsel for both parties via electronic mail on November 2, 2018, requesting Respondent to state his position on this instant Motion. Respondent's counsel indicated that Respondent does not oppose this instant motion.

To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, Petitioner must prove either (1) that he suffered a "Table Injury" — i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table — from his Tdap vaccination, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by his Tdap vaccination. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Moreover, under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on his claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent medical expert. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioner to meet his burden of proof. Petitioner's claim therefore cannot succeed and must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.