NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

DECISION DISMISSING CASE1

BRIAN H. CORCORAN, Chief Special Master.

On February 20, 2018, Nicole Moats filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Program").2 Petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine she received on October 7, 2016, caused her to suffer from idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura ("ITP"). Pet. at 2.

After the claim's initiation, Petitioner filed medical records, exhibits, and an affidavit to support the claims in her Petition. Respondent reviewed Petitioner's filings and filed a Rule 4(c) Report, maintaining that Petitioner was not entitled to compensation. See Resp.'s Rule 4(c) Report, filed November 20, 2018 (ECF No. 17). Specifically, Respondent argued that Petitioner had: (1) failed to set forth a reliable medical theory; and (2) failed to put forth a logical sequence of cause and effect that her ITP was the result of her flu vaccine. Id. at 5.

Later, on February 27, 2019, Petitioner was directed to file an expert report on or before May 17. 2019. On May 3, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file her expert report. (ECF No. 21). That motion was granted, and Petitioner's deadline was extended to July 2, 2019. Then, on July 2, 2019, Petitioner filed her second motion for extension of time to file her expert report. (ECF No. 23). That motion was also granted, extending the deadline to September. Subsequently, Petitioner filed another motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 24). Therein, Petitioner indicated she would not be filing an expert report, but requested thirty days to consider the procedural options available in the Program. Id. I granted the motion and ordered Petitioner to file, on or before October 3, 2019, a motion for ruling on the record or a status report proposing some other means of the claim's resolution.

Responding to my previous order, Petitioner filed a motion for decision denying compensation. Pet'r's Mot., filed September 16, 2019 (ECF No. 25). In it, Petitioner stated that she had filed all evidence she believed relevant to this matter and did not intend to file any further evidence. Id. at 1. Additionally, Petitioner waived the right to any hearing or further proceeding in this matter. Id. Petitioner also stated that she does intend to protect her rights to file a civil action in the future—and pursuant to Section 300-21(a)(2), she intends to reject the Vaccine Program Judgment against her and elect to file a civil action. Id. at 2. Respondent has not lodged an objection to the claim's dismissal.

Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on her claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence in the record for Petitioner to meet her burden of proof, nor has Petitioner provided a medical expert or opinion to support her claim that the flu vaccine caused her ITP. Therefore, without more, Petitioner's claim cannot succeed and must be dismissed. Section 11(c)(1)(A).

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.