VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_08-vv-00396
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_08-vv-00396
Petitioner: N.C.A.
Filed: 2008-05-30
Decided: 2014-11-05
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: 
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 30, 2008, Matthew and Suzanne Anderson, as parents and natural guardians of N.C.A., a minor, filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation. The petition alleged that N.C.A. was injured by a vaccine or vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The caption identified the underlying claim as autism. The public decision does not specify the vaccine(s) administered, the date(s) of vaccination, N.C.A.'s age at vaccination, or the specific condition alleged beyond autism. The respondent was the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On November 4, 2014, the petitioners moved for a decision on the merits, acknowledging that insufficient evidence existed to demonstrate entitlement to compensation. Chief Special Master Denise K. Vowell reviewed the record. The decision noted that to receive compensation, petitioners must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine. The record did not disclose evidence of a "Table Injury," nor did it contain a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating that N.C.A.'s alleged injury was vaccine-caused. The public decision stated that a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on claims alone and that the petition must be supported by medical records or a medical opinion. As the record lacked sufficient medical records or a medical opinion to demonstrate that N.C.A. was injured by a vaccine, the petition was dismissed for insufficient proof on November 5, 2014. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests performed, or treatments received. Following the dismissal of the claim for compensation, a separate decision addressed attorney's fees and costs. On March 23, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorney's Fees and Costs. The stipulation indicated that petitioners had informally provided the respondent with their application for attorney's fees and costs and personal litigation costs, and after discussions, petitioners requested an amount to which the respondent did not object. Chief Special Master Vowell found that the petition was brought in good faith and had a reasonable basis, making an award for fees and costs appropriate. The total award for attorney's fees and costs was $85,000.00, payable as a lump sum check jointly to petitioners Matthew Anderson and Suzanne Anderson, and their counsel of record, Robert Krakow. This award was intended to cover all legal expenses, including advanced costs and fees for legal services rendered.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners Matthew and Suzanne Anderson, on behalf of minor N.C.A., filed a petition alleging injury from a vaccine or vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, with the underlying claim identified as autism. The petition was filed on May 30, 2008. The specific vaccine(s), vaccination date(s), and age at vaccination are not specified in the public decision. Petitioners moved for a decision on the merits on November 4, 2014, acknowledging insufficient evidence for entitlement. Chief Special Master Denise K. Vowell dismissed the petition on November 5, 2014, finding no evidence of a "Table Injury" and no medical expert opinion or other persuasive evidence to prove actual vaccine causation. The public decision does not detail the alleged mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. The dismissal was based on insufficient proof, as the record lacked medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate a vaccine-caused injury. Subsequently, a stipulation for attorney's fees and costs was filed on March 23, 2015. Chief Special Master Vowell awarded $85,000.00 for attorney's fees and costs, payable jointly to the petitioners and their counsel, Robert Krakow, finding the petition was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis. No compensation for vaccine injury was awarded.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_08-vv-00396-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-11-26
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/05/2014) regarding 82 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell. (dlb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:08-vv-00396-UNJ Document 84 Filed 11/26/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 08-396V
Filed: November 5, 2014
Not To Be Published
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MATTHEW ANDERSON and *
SUZANNE ANDERSON, parents and *
natural guardians of N.C.A., a minor, *
*
Petitioners, * Autism; Petitioners’ Motion for a
* Decision Dismissing their Petition;
v. * Insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine
* Act Entitlement
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, N.Y. for petitioners.
Alexis Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On May 30, 2008, petitioners filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [“the Program”],2 alleging that N.C.A.
was injured by a vaccine or vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. See § 14. The
information in the record does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party
has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must
include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material
fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be redacted from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-
660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or
“the Act”]. Hereafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:08-vv-00396-UNJ Document 84 Filed 11/26/14 Page 2 of 2
On November 4, 2014, the petitioners moved for a decision on the merits of the
petition, acknowledging that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate entitlement to
compensation.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioners must prove either 1)
that N.C.A. suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury
Table – corresponding to one of N.C.A.’s vaccinations, or 2) that N.C.A. suffered an
injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1).
Examination of the record does not disclose any evidence that N.C.A. suffered a “Table
Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other
persuasive evidence indicating that N.C.A.’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the
medical records or by a medical opinion. § 13 (a)(1). In this case, the record does not
contain medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee
was injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, in accordance with § 12(d)(3)(A), the
petitioners’ claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for
insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_08-vv-00396-2
Date issued/filed: 2015-04-15
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/23/2015) regarding 88 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell. (mbl) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:08-vv-00396-UNJ Document 91 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 08-0396V
Filed: March 23, 2015
Not For Publication
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MATTHEW ANDERSON and *
SUZANNE ANDERSON, *
parents and natural guardians of, *
N.C.A., a minor, *
*
Petitioners, * Attorney Fees and Costs;
v. * Stipulation
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert J. Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, NY, for petitioners.
Alexis B. Babcock, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
[hereinafter “the Program”],2 the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorney’s
Fees and Costs [“Stipulation”] on March 23, 2015. The Stipulation indicated that
petitioners informally provided respondent with their application for attorney’s fees and
costs and petitioners’ personal litigation costs.
The Stipulation indicates that, after informal discussions with respondent,
petitioners now request an amount to which respondent does not object.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be
posted 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to
delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will delete such
material from public access.
2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the Program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.
(2006).

Case 1:08-vv-00396-UNJ Document 91 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 2
I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a
reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems
reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the total $85,000.003 as
follows:
 a lump sum of $85,000.00 in the form of a check payable jointly to
petitioners, Matthew Anderson and Suzanne Anderson, and
petitioners’ counsel of record for petitioners’ attorney fees and
costs.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
3 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.
Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including
costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y, HHS, 924
F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
2