VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00334
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00334
Petitioner: Ashton Godfrey
Filed: 2014-09-24
Decided: 2014-10-22
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 2009-06-10
Condition: immune mediated illness
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Ashton Godfrey filed a petition on September 24, 2014, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that Mr. Godfrey suffered an immune-mediated illness as a result of vaccines received on June 10, 2009. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report challenging the claim. The parties subsequently filed medical exhibits and expert reports and prepared for an entitlement hearing scheduled for October 6, 2014. On September 22, 2014, a status conference was held, during which the parties indicated they had reached an agreement to dismiss the case and intended to work towards resolving attorneys' fees and costs. Following the status conference, Mr. Godfrey filed an unopposed motion to dismiss his petition with prejudice, stating his decision to withdraw his vaccine-related claims. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine. The public decision does not describe any specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, or treatments. The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury," nor did the petitioner attempt to establish that his alleged injuries were vaccine-caused. As Mr. Godfrey chose not to proceed and did not meet his burden of proof, the case was dismissed at his request. The decision was issued by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on October 22, 2014. Petitioner was represented by Jay Bansal of the Law Offices of Jay A. Bansal, and respondent was represented by Darryl Wishard of the U.S. Department of Justice. No award amount was granted as the case was dismissed.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Ashton Godfrey filed a petition on September 24, 2014, alleging an immune-mediated illness resulting from vaccines received on June 10, 2009. The case was dismissed on October 22, 2014, by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran at the petitioner's request. The petitioner withdrew his vaccine-related claims, stating he did not wish to proceed. The public decision does not specify the exact vaccines administered or the petitioner's age at the time of vaccination. The petitioner did not present evidence of a "Table Injury" nor did he attempt to establish that his alleged injuries were vaccine-caused. The public decision does not describe any specific medical experts, proposed mechanism of injury, or detailed clinical findings. No award was made as the case was dismissed prior to an entitlement determination.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00334-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-10-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/24/2014) regarding 45 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00334-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-334V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ASHTON GODFREY, *
* Filed: September 24, 2014
*
Petitioner, * Petitioners’ Motion for a Decision
v. * Dismissing the Petition; Vaccine Act
* Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jay Bansal, Law Offices of Jay A. Bansal, Tempe, AZ, for Petitioner.
Darryl Wishard, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On May 29, 2012, Ashton Godfrey filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 alleging that he suffered from an immune
mediated illness as a result of vaccines that he received on June 10, 2009. See Petition at 1, 4
(ECF Docket No. 1). After Respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report challenging the
appropriateness of a damages award, the parties subsequently filed relevant medical exhibits and
expert reports, and then prepared for an entitlement hearing scheduled to begin October 6, 2014.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of
the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To
do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is
privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the
public. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation 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.A. ' 300aa-10 – 34 (2006))
[hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to ' 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:12-vv-00334-UNJ Document 48 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 2
A digitally recorded telephonic status conference requested by the parties was conducted
on September 22, 2014. During the status conference, the parties indicated that they had come to
an agreement regarding dismissal of this case and also intended to attempt to work together to
informally resolve the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs.
After the status conference, Mr. Godfrey filed an unopposed motion requesting that a
decision be entered dismissing this case. Motion at 1 (ECF No. 44). The motion indicated that
“Petitioner has decided to withdraw his vaccine related claims and requests the Special Master
issue a decision dismissing the action with prejudice under Vaccine Rule 21(b).” Id.
To receive compensation under the 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 Mr. Godfrey suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, Petitioner has not opted not to
attempt to establish that his alleged injuries were vaccine-caused.
In this case, Mr. Godfrey has chosen not to proceed with his claim, and thus has not met
his burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and must be dismissed.
§11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is dismissed at Petitioner’s request. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00334-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-10-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/24/2014) regarding 45 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00334-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-334V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ASHTON GODFREY, *
* Filed: September 24, 2014
*
Petitioner, * Petitioners’ Motion for a Decision
v. * Dismissing the Petition; Vaccine Act
* Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jay Bansal, Law Offices of Jay A. Bansal, Tempe, AZ, for Petitioner.
Darryl Wishard, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On May 29, 2012, Ashton Godfrey filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 alleging that he suffered from an immune
mediated illness as a result of vaccines that he received on June 10, 2009. See Petition at 1, 4
(ECF Docket No. 1). After Respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report challenging the
appropriateness of a damages award, the parties subsequently filed relevant medical exhibits and
expert reports, and then prepared for an entitlement hearing scheduled to begin October 6, 2014.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of
the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To
do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is
privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the
public. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation 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.A. ' 300aa-10 – 34 (2006))
[hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to ' 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:12-vv-00334-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 2
A digitally recorded telephonic status conference requested by the parties was conducted
on September 22, 2014. During the status conference, the parties indicated that they had come to
an agreement regarding dismissal of this case and also intended to attempt to work together to
informally resolve the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs.
After the status conference, Mr. Godfrey filed an unopposed motion requesting that a
decision be entered dismissing this case. Motion at 1 (ECF No. 44). The motion indicated that
“Petitioner has decided to withdraw his vaccine related claims and requests the Special Master
issue a decision dismissing the action with prejudice under Vaccine Rule 21(b).” Id.
To receive compensation under the 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 Mr. Godfrey suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, Petitioner has not opted not to
attempt to establish that his alleged injuries were vaccine-caused.
In this case, Mr. Godfrey has chosen not to proceed with his claim, and thus has not met
his burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and must be dismissed.
§11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is dismissed at Petitioner’s request. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2