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Not To Be Published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”),2alleging 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in 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.
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