VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00333
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00333
Petitioner: D.R.
Filed: 2013-05-16
Decided: 2014-06-10
Vaccine: 
Vaccination date: 
Condition: 
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Daniella Castillo and Daniel Ruiz, parents of D.R., filed a petition for vaccine compensation on May 16, 2013, alleging D.R. was injured by a vaccine. The petition did not specify the vaccine type, date, or the alleged injury. On January 8, 2014, the petitioners moved for a decision on the merits, acknowledging insufficient evidence to demonstrate entitlement to compensation. The court noted that to receive compensation, petitioners must prove either a Table Injury or that the vaccine actually caused the injury. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it include a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating a vaccine-caused injury. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for insufficient proof of causation. Subsequently, on May 29, 2014, petitioners filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, which was granted by the Chief Special Master on July 8, 2014, awarding $3,197.06 in fees and costs, finding the petition was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00333-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-01-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell. (tjk) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00333-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/10/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-333V
Filed: January 10, 2014
Not To Be Published
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DANIELLA CASTILLO and *
DANIEL RUIZ, on behalf of D.R., *
*
*
Petitioners, * Autism; Petitioners’ Motion for a
* Decision Dismissing their Petition;
v. * Insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine
* Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DECISION1
On May 16, 2013, petitioners filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),2 alleging that D.R. 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 delete 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 deleted 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 1:13-vv-00333-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/10/14 Page 2 of 2
On January 8, 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 D.R. suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury
Table – corresponding to one of D.R.’s vaccinations, or 2) that D.R. suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination
of the record does not reveal any evidence that D.R. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further,
the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence
indicating that D.R.’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),
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_13-vv-00333-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-07-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/10/2014) regarding 21 DECISION of Special Master - Fees. Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell. (tpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00333-UNJ Document 22 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-333V
Filed: June 10, 2014
(Not To Be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DANIELLA CASTILLO and *
DANIEL RUIZ, on behalf of D.R., *
*
Petitioners, * Attorney Fees and Costs
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lawrence Disparti, Esq., Disparti Law Group PA, Holiday, FL, for petitioner.
Lynn Ricciardella, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 I issued
a decision dismissing the petition on January 10, 2014. On May 29, 2014, petitioners
filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. Accompanying their motion, was a General
Order #9 statement in which their counsel conveyed that they incurred no personal
litigation costs. Respondent has informally indicated to my chambers that she has no
objection to the total amount of fees and costs requested by petitioners in their motion.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
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), petitioner has 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 1:13-vv-00333-UNJ Document 22 Filed 07/08/14 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 $3,197.063 in the
form of a check payable jointly to petitioners 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