U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Director

National Pollution Funds Center

United States Coast Guard

NPFC CA MS 7100

US COAST GUARD

4200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 20598-7100

Staff Symbol: (CA)

Phone: 1-800-280-7118

E-mail: arl-pf-mpfc@uscg.mil 

Fax: 202-493-6937

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 5890/DWHZ 

Number: 7011 1570 0001 4802 8795 16 February 2012 

Natural Family Physicians, Inc.

c/o Law Offices of 

P.O. Box 337

Naples, Florida 34106 

Re: Claim Number: N10036-1590 

Dear 

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 

U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (OPA) and the associated regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 136, denies payment on the 

claim number N10036-1590 involving the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please see the attached Claim 

Summary/Determination Form for further explanation. 

You may make a written request for reconsideration of this claim. The reconsideration must be received 

by the NPFC within 60 days of the date of this letter and must include the factual or legal basis of the 

request for reconsideration, providing any additional support for the claim. However, if you find that you 

will be unable to gather particular information within the time period, you may include a request for an 

extension of time for a specified duration with your reconsideration request. 

Reconsideration of the denial will be based upon the information provided. A claim may be reconsidered 

only once. Disposition of that reconsideration in writing will constitute final agency action. Failure of 

the NPFC to issue a written decision within 90 days after receipt of a timely request for reconsideration 

shall, at the option of the claimant, be deemed final agency action. All correspondence should include 

claim number N10036-1590. 

Mail reconsideration requests to:

Director (ca)

NPFC CA MS 7100 

US COAST GUARD

4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1000 

Arlington, VA 20598-7100 

Sincerely,

Claims Adjudication Division

National Pollution Funds Center

U.S. Coast Guard 

Enclosure: Claim Summary/Determination Form 

Claimant: Natural Family Physicians, Inc

 4536 SW 3rd Avenue 

 Cape Coral, Florida 33914 

 By CERTFIED MAIL – RETURNED RECEIPT # 7011 1570 0001 4802 8764

 
CLAIM SUMMARY/DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number N10036-1590

Claimant Natural Family Physicians

Typeof Claimant Corporate (US) 

Type of Claim Loss of Profits and Impairment of Earning Capacity

Amount Requested $64,149.00

FACTS 

On or about 20 April 2010, the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon (Deepwater 

Horizon) exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the explosion and sinking, oil 

was discharged. The Coast Guard designated the source of the discharge and identified BP as a 

responsible party (RP). BP accepted the designation and advertised its OPA claims process. On 

23 August 2010, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) began accepting and adjudicating 

certain individual and business claims on behalf of BP.

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT

On 1 December 2011 the Natural Family Physicians through its attorney, David A. Dancu

(NFP/The Claimant) presented a claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) seeking 

$64,149.00 in loss of profits damages allegedly resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1

The Claimant owns and operates a holistic medical practice in Cape Coral, Florida. The 

Claimant alleged that the oil spill caused a “dramatic reduction in tourism” which negatively 

impacted the local economy, causing residents to be unable to continue to use his services.2

 

Specifically, the Claimant stated that “tourists were reluctant to come to Florida, specifically the 

[southwest] Florida area, because of the potential dangers and media coverage showing the 

traveling oil slick.”3 According to the Claimant, the “city’s revenue is very much dependent 

upon tourism. When tourists spend the money in our city, locals who have earned that money, 

spend it.”4

The Claimant alleged to have incurred actual losses of $34,149.00 and anticipates incurring

future losses of $30,000.00.5

 The Claimant does not specify the period covered by this claim.

APPLICABLE LAW 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), at 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable 

for removal costs and damages resulting from the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable 

waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone, as described in § 2702(b) of 

OPA. 

The OSLTF which is administered by the NPFC, is available, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4) 

and § 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 136, to pay claims 

for uncompensated damages. One type of damages available pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 136.231 is 

1 Optional OSLTF Claim Form, signed on 29 November 2011.

2 Claimant’s statement to the GCCF dated 15 June 2011.

3 Optional OSLTF Claim Form, signed on 29 November 2011.

4 Claimant’s statement to the GCCF dated 15 June 2011.

5 Claimant’s statement to the GCCF dated 15 June 2011.

 
a claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury to or destruction of 

natural resources.

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.233 a claimant must establish the following:

(a) That real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, destroyed, or lost.

(b) That the claimant’s income was reduced as a consequence of injury to, destruction of, or 

loss of property or natural resources, and the amount of that reduction.

(c) The amount of the claimant’s profits or earnings in comparable periods and during the 

period when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as established by income tax 

returns, financial statements, and similar documents. In addition, comparative figures for 

profits or earnings for the same or similar activities outside of the area affected by the 

incident also must be established.

(d) Whether alternative employment or business was available and undertaken and, if so, the 

amount of income received. All income that a claimant received as a result of the 

incident must be clearly indicated and any saved overhead and other normal expenses not 

incurred as a result of the incident must be established. 

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.105(a) and § 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to 

the NPFC, all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, 

NPFC, to support the claim. 

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.235, the amount of compensation allowable for a claim involving loss of 

profits or impairment of earning capacity is limited to the actual net reduction or loss of earnings 

or profits suffered. Calculations for net reductions or losses must clearly reflect adjustments 

for—

(a) All income resulting from the incident;

(b) All income from alternative employment or business undertaken;

(c) Potential income from alternative employment or business not undertake, but reasonably 

available;

(d) Any saved overhead or normal expenses not incurred as a result of the incident; and

(e) State, local, and Federal taxes.

DETERMINATION OF LOSS 

Claimant’s Submission to the OSLTF

To support this claim, the Claimant submitted the following documentation:

• Optional OSLTF Claim Form, received on 1 December 2011;

• Correspondence signed by Robert Murdoch of Natural Family Physicians, Inc, dated 29 

November 2011, and giving his counsel, David Dancu permission to act on his behalf and 

as his representative before the NPFC;

• Correspondence from Claimant’s counsel David Dancu dated 1 December 2011;

• Claim Cover letter from Claimant’s counsel David Dancu dated 15 November 2011;

• Correspondence from Claimant’s counsel providing information requested from NPFC, 

dated 8 December 2011;

• Correspondence from the Claimant to the GCCF explaining his rationale and basis for the 

claim for loss of profits, dated 15 June 2011;

• Affidavit of the Montessori Academy (Belkis Young) dated 8 July 2011; 

• Affidavit of Karen Sharpe dated 15 July 2011; 
• Affidavit of Philip Dyer dated 20 July 2011; 

• Affidavit of Ashco & Associates (Ashley Cohen)dated 29 July 2011; and

• Affidavit of Amy Wittman dated 15 July 20116

Prior to presentment to the NPFC, the Claimant presented a Full Review Final (FRF) Claim to 

the RP/GCCF seeking loss of profits and earnings damages in the amount of $34,149.00. 7 The 

Claimant was assigned GCCF Claimant ID #3525559 and the EAP claim was assigned GCCF 

Claim # 9399722.

8

 This claim was denied by the GCCF.9

On 1 December 2011 the Claimant presented this claim to the NPFC, seeking $64,149.00 in loss 

of profits and impairment of earning capacity damages. 10 Claims previously presented by the 

Claimant to the RP/GCCF total $34,149.0011. OPA requires that any claim for costs or damages

presented to the NPFC, be first presented to the RP.12 Because the Claimant has presented 

damages to the NPFC which exceed the amount of damages presented to the RP by $30,000.00,

this claim is initially denied in this amount.

NPFC Determination

Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(E) and 33 C.F.R. Part 136, a claimant must prove that any loss of 

income was due to injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property or of a natural resource 

as a result of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.105(a) 

and § 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to the NPFC all evidence, 

information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support this claim.

As noted above, $30,000.00 of the alleged damages presented in this claim is initially denied, as 

these damages were not first presented to the RP/GCCF prior to being presented to the NPFC.13 

Regarding the remaining $34,149.00 in alleged lost profits damages, the Claimant must provide 

evidence sufficient to prove (1) that the Claimant sustained a financial loss in this amount and (2) 

that the alleged loss was due to the discharge of oil resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill.

In his initial submission to the NPFC, the Claimant presented various affidavits from patients, 

noting that they observed a decline in the Claimant’s business following the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill.

14 However, the Claimant failed to provide actual financial documentation to show if, 

and to what extent he may have sustained a financial loss. The Claimant also failed to provide 

documentation sufficient to prove that the alleged loss was due to the discharge of oil resulting 

from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

In a letter dated 2 December 2012, the NPFC requested that the Claimant provide certain 

information to further develop this claim. Among other items, the NPFC requested that the 

Claimant provide financial documentation, such as income tax returns, to demonstrate that the 

6 Claimant’s Submission to the NPFC 

7 GCCF United States Coast Guard Report, 4 January 2012.

8 GCCF United States Coast Guard Report, 4 January 2012.

9 GCCF United States Coast Guard Report, 4 January 2012 

10 Optional OSLTF Claim Form, dated 1December 2011. 11 GCCF United States Coast Guard Report, 4 January 2012 12 33 C.F.R. § 136.103(a) 13 33 C.F.R. § 136.103(a). 14 Copies of various affidavits included in Claimant’s submission to the NPFC.

 
Claimant sustained an actual financial loss, and to identify the extent of the alleged loss. The 

NPFC also requested that the Claimant provide documentation, including a list of clients, to 

show that the Claimant’s alleged loss was due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 15 As of the 

date of this determination, the Claimant has failed to respond.

Additionally, the NPFC notes that tourism statistics for Lee County, Florida fail to support the 

Claimant’s assertion that the oil spill caused a “dramatic reduction in tourism.

16 For example, 

total visitation to Lee County in August of 2010, increased by 22.7%, as compared to total

visitation in August of 2009.17 For the year of 2010, total visitation increased by 2.3% as 

compared to 2009, with the percentage of individuals staying in paid accommodations, 

increasing by 4.9%.18 

Based on documentation provided by the Claimant, as well as independent research conducted 

by the NPFC, this claim is denied because the Claimant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate 

(1) that the claim was properly presented to the Responsible Party, (2) that he sustained a loss in 

the amount of $64,149.00, and (3) that the alleged loss is due to the injury, destruction or loss of 

property or natural resources as a result of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil.

Claim Supervisor: NPFC Claims Adjudication Division

Date of Supervisor’s Review: 2/16/12

Supervisor’s Action: Denial approved

Supervisor’s Comments:

15 NPFC request for additional information, dated 2 December 2011. 16 See, www.leevcb.com. 17 Lee County Visitors & Convention Bureau, Monthly Visitor Profile Report, August 2010, available at, 

http://www.leevcb.com/content/monthly-visitor-profile-reports. Accessed on 15 February 2012. 18 Lee County Visitors & Convention Bureau, Annual Visitors Profile Summary Report, 2010, available at, 

http://www.leevcb.com/content/annual-visitor-profile-summary-reports,. Accessed on 15 February 2012.