Not to be published

DECISION DISMISSING CASE1

BRIAN H. CORCORAN, Special Master.

On December 22, 2017, Sarah Neal filed a Petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Program").2 Petitioner alleged that her receipt of the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis ("TDaP") vaccine on December 22, 2015, caused the in utero death of her son, C.N., which in turn caused Petitioner to experience emotional and psychological suffering. Pet. at 1 (ECF No. 1). This case was filed in conjunction with a petition on behalf of C.N., which was dismissed on July 24, 2018, on the grounds that the Vaccine Act's provisions relating to vaccines impacting infants in utero do not cover deceased unborn children. Neal v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-2020V, 2018 WL 4482535 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 24, 2018).

The above-captioned matter went forward, and Petitioner filed medical records and an affidavit in early 2018. Upon review of these filings, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report, asserting that Petitioner was not entitled to compensation. See generally Resp't's Rule 4(c) Report, filed Aug. 14, 2018 (ECF No. 15). Respondent argued that Petitioner had failed to put forth a reliable scientific theory explaining how her C.N.'s death was caused by the TDaP vaccine, and that her related claim of emotional and psychological distress thus could not succeed. Id. at 6-7.

Petitioner filed an expert report from Alan Levin, M.D., on January 29, 2019 (ECF No. 22-1). During a status conference on February 13, 2019, I expressed my view that Dr. Levin's report did not provide substantial support for Petitioner's claim, and I directed Petitioner to file a supplemental expert report to strengthen her position. See Docket Order, dated Feb. 13, 2019. Unable to obtain such additional expert support, Petitioner instead filed a Motion seeking dismissal of her claim on May 31, 2019. See generally Pet'r's Mot. for Decision Dismissing Pet. (ECF No. 27).

To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must prove either (1) that she suffered a Table injury, or (2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See Sections 11(c)(1), 13(a)(1)(A). However, Petitioner did not suffer a Table injury, and the record does not contain persuasive evidence indicating that her child's in utero death could have been caused by the TDaP vaccine Petitioner received on December 22, 2015.

The death of an unborn child is a heartbreaking event, and I am sympathetic to the fact that Petitioner experienced profound grief and emotional distress as a result of this tragedy. However, Petitioner has not offered preponderant evidence demonstrating that her child's passing was causally related to the TDaP vaccine. In keeping with Section 11(c)(1)(A), her claim therefore cannot succeed and must be dismissed.

Accordingly, I hereby DISMISS Petitioner's case. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.