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(Not to be published) 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. 
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