# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 333 V

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Not To Be Published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. *

*

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

DECISION 1

On May 16, 2013

, petitioner s filed a Petition f or 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in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 Child hood 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

O n January 8, 2014

, the petitioner s m oved 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, petitioner s must prove either

1) that D.R. suffered a “Table Injury”

– i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury

Table

– corres ponding to one of D.R. ’s vacc inations, or 2) that D.R. suffered an injury

that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). E xamination

of the record d oes not r eveal any evidence that D.R. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further,

the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive eviden ce

indicating that D.R. ’s alleged injury was vaccine

- caused.

Under the Vaccine Ac t, 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),

petitioner s ’ claim for compensation is denied and t his 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