1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: April 14, 2017 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

STEVEN PARKER and ELIZABETH *

PARKER, as Parents and Natural * UNPUBLISHED 

Guardians of K.C.P., a Minor, * 

 * No. 02-1553V 

Petitioners, * 

v. * Chief Special Master Dorsey 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Dismissal; Diptheria-TetanusAND HUMAN SERVICES, * acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”);

 * Haemophilus Influenzae type B 

Respondent. * (“HIB”); Hepatitis B (“Hep B”)

 * Inactivated Polio Vaccine (“IPV”);

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Encephalopathy; Autism 

 

Renee J. Gentry, Vaccine Injury Clinic, George Washington University Law School, 

Washington, DC, for petitioners.

Linda S. Renzi, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DISMISSAL DECISION1

On November 14, 2002, Steven Parker and Elizabeth Parker (“petitioners”) filed a 

petition on behalf of their minor child, K.C.P., pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program.

2 On August 5, 2014, petitioners filed an amended petition alleging that 

K.C.P. developed hypotonia, a seizure disorder, encephalopathy, and global developmental delay 

as a result of receiving a Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine, a 

Haemophilus Influenzae type B (“HIB”) vaccine, a Hepatitis B (“Hep B”) vaccine, and an 

Inactivated Polio Vaccine (“IPV”) on February 10, 2000. Amended Petition, dated August 5, 

2014, at Preamble. The information in the record, however, 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have

14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a 

proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the 

requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access. 

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 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. 
2

On April 12, 2017, petitioners moved for a decision dismissing their petition, stating that 

“[f]ollowing the Rule 5 Conference on March 7, 2017, Petitioners understand that their claim 

will not succeed in the Program.” Petitioners’ Motion for Decision Dismissing Their Petition at 

¶ 1. Petitioners state that they understand that a decision by the Chief Special Master dismissing 

their petition will result in a judgment against them, and that they have been advised that such a 

judgment will end all of their rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 2. Petitioners state that 

they intend to protect their rights to file a civil action. Id. at ¶ 4. 

To receive compensation under the Program, petitioners must prove either (1) that K.C.P. 

suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding 

to the vaccination, or (2) that K.C.P. suffered an injury that was actually caused by the 

vaccination. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any 

evidence that K.C.P. suffered a “Table Injury,” nor do petitioners allege that K.C.P. suffered a 

“Table Injury.” Therefore, petitioners’ burden is to show actual causation, which they can do by 

filing medical records or an expert medical opinion in support of their claim. The medical 

records in this case do not establish causation. Petitioners have also filed an expert report from 

Dr. Yuval Shafrir. However, the Office of Special Masters has adjudicated numerous claims 

involving autism, and numerous claims involving Dr. Shafrir’s theories and medical literature. 

In all of these cases, special masters concluded that the evidence is inadequate to support 

causation and have ruled against petitioners. The evidence is also inadequate in this case. 

Under the Vaccine Act, petitioners may not receive a Program award based solely on the 

petitioners’ 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 are insufficient medical 

records supporting petitioners’ claim, and Dr. Shafrir’s theories are unlikely to prevail because 

they have previously been found inadequate to establish causation between the vaccines and the 

symptoms involved in this case. 

 

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to 

demonstrate either that K.C.P. suffered a “Table Injury” or that the injuries were “actually 

caused” by her February 10, 2000, vaccinations. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient 

proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/ Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master