VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00119
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00119
Petitioner: Robert Hofstetter
Filed: 2014-04-21
Decided: 2014-11-13
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2010-02-15
Condition: chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Robert Hofstetter filed a petition for vaccine compensation on February 14, 2013, alleging that the DTaP vaccine he received on February 15, 2010, caused him to suffer chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). After gathering medical records, Mr. Hofstetter filed a motion on April 16, 2014, seeking dismissal of his petition due to insufficient proof of causation. The court noted that to receive compensation, Mr. Hofstetter needed to prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused his injury. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it include a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence of vaccine causation. Consequently, the court found insufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof and dismissed the petition for insufficient proof on May 13, 2014. Subsequently, on November 13, 2014, the court approved the petitioner's request for attorneys' fees and costs totaling $5,591.50, and an additional $19.24 in reimbursable costs, to be paid jointly to the petitioner and his counsel.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00119-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-05-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/21/2014)regarding 29 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00119-UNJ Document 30 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-119V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
ROBERT HOFSTETTER, *
* Filed: April 21, 2014
Petitioner, *
* Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision;
v. * Dismissing the Petition for
* Insufficient Proof of Causation;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Vaccine Act Entitlement; Denial
HUMAN SERVICES , * Without Hearing
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Amy C. Gunn, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner
Jennifer L. Reynaud, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION1
On February 14, 2013, Robert Hofstetter filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 alleging that the diphtheria, tetanus, and
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will 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)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B),
however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of
confidential information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) permits each party 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 is set forth in 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-' 300aa-34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to
individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa.

Case 1:13-vv-00119-UNJ Document 30 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 2
acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine he received on February 15, 2010 caused him to suffer
various injuries, including chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP).
After gathering all of his relevant medical records, Petitioner filed a motion on April 16,
2014 seeking a decision dismissing his petition, indicating that “additional information” he had
gathered had led him to seek dismissal of his claim.
To receive compensation under the Program, Mr. Hofstetter 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, did not
uncover any evidence that Mr. Hofstetter suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not
contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that Mr.
Hofstetter’s alleged injury was vaccine-caused.
Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based solely on the
petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by
the opinion of a competent physician. §13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence in
the record for Mr. Hofstetter to meet his burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot
succeed and must be dismissed. §11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00119-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-11-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/17/2014) regarding 37 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00119-UNJ Document 38 Filed 11/13/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-119V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
ROBERT HOFSTETTER, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: October 17, 2014
*
v. * Decision; Attorneys’
* Fees & Costs
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Amy Collignon Gunn, Simon Law Firm, PC, St. Louis, Mo., for Petitioner.
Jennifer Reynaud, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On February 14, 2013, Robert Hofstetter filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 After proceeding in the matter for a period of
time, Petitioner filed a motion seeking dismissal of his petition on April 16, 2014. I subsequently
issued a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence in the record for Mr. Hofstetter to
meet his burden of proof, and therefore Petitioner’s claim could not succeed and must be
dismissed.
1 Because this ruling 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 ruling 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 1:13-vv-00119-UNJ Document 38 Filed 11/13/14 Page 2 of 2
On June 30, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner
requested total attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,162.00 and total attorneys’ costs of $1,429.50,
in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel (for a total amount of
$5,591.50). Thereafter, in compliance with General Order #9, Petitioner represented (in an
October 9, 2014 filing) that he had incurred $19.24 in reimbursable costs in proceeding on this
petition. Accordingly, Petitioner also requests a check for $19.24 made payable to Petitioner.
Respondent did not file any opposition to these requests, and Respondent’s counsel indicated in a
telephone conversation with my law clerk that Respondent does not object to these attorneys’
fees and costs requests.
I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as Petitioner’s costs,
as reasonable. Accordingly, an award of $5,591.50 should be made in the form of a check
payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Amy Collignon Gunn, Esq., and an award
of $19.24 should be made in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. 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 the parties’ stipulation.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or
separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2