CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 5890/DWHZ 

Number: 7011 1570 0001 4802 6500 11 January 2012 

 

Swan River Seafood Restaurant and Market

Attn: 

3741 Tamiami Trail North

Naples, Florida 34103 

Re: Claim Number: N10036-1558 

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 your claim 

number N10036-1558 involving the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please see the enclosed 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. If, however 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 N10036-1558. 

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 

Enclosures: (1) Claim Summary/Determination Form 

 (2) Evidence Provided by the Claimant in Support of Claim N10036-1558 

U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Director

United States Coast Guard

National Pollution Funds Center

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-npfcclaimsinfo@uscg.mil

Fax: 202-493-6937
CLAIM SUMMARY/DETERMINATION FORM

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 14 November 2011, Joesph McLaughlin, on behalf of Swan River Seafood Restaurant and Market 

(collectively, the Claimant) presented an Optional Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) Claim Form to 

the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking $80,666.10 in loss of profits and impairment of 

earnings capacity that allegedly resulted from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The Claimant operates a seafood restaurant and market in Naples, Florida.1

 The Claimant asserts that due 

to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the restaurant and market experienced a combination of: an increase in 

the price of Gulf of Mexico seafood, an unavailability of Gulf of Mexico seafood, loss of customers as 

evidenced by reduced foot traffic, loss of customers as a result of reduced tourism and overall decreased 

sales due to reduced customer confidence regarding seafood from the Gulf of Mexico.2

 As a result of 

these issues the Claimant asserts he suffered reduced income in 2010 and 2011.3

The Claimant provided the following explanation regarding the calculation of his sum certain of 

$80,666.10: the Claimant listed the increase of shrimp costs year over year at $60,000.00, added the costs 

related to the unavailability of oysters from June 2010-November 2010 of $2,604.00, added the costs of 

discounted lobster dinners of $12,915.00, added the costs of including a complimentary gourmet salad 

with dinner specials at $3,305.50, added the costs of free appetizers at $875.00 and added the costs of 

advertising at $966.60 for a total of $80,666.10.4

 The Claimant then adopted this number as his sum 

certain.5

APPLICABLE LAW

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) provides that each responsible party for a vessel or facility from 

which oil is discharged into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or exclusive economic 

zone is liable for removal costs and damages. 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). Damages include the loss of profits 

or impairment of earning capacity due to the injury, destruction or loss of real property, personal property, 

or natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant. 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(E).

1 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 2 Optional OSTLF Claim Form received 14 November 2011.

3 Optional OSTLF Claim Form received 14 November 2011.

4 Document titled ‘Itemized Damage Totals’.

5 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011.

Claim Number N10036-1558

Claimant Swan River Seafood Restaurant and Market 

Type of Claimant Business 

Type of Claim Loss of Profits and Impairment of Earnings Capacity

Amount Requested $80,666.10

 
The OSLTF, which is administered by the NPFC, is available to pay claims for uncompensated damages 

pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4) and § 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 

C.F.R. Part 136. With certain exceptions a claim must first be presented to the responsible party. 33 

U.S.C. § 2713(a). If the claim is either denied or not settled by any person by payment within 90 days 

after the date on which it was presented, the claimant may elect to commence an action in court or present 

the claim to the OSLTF. 33 U.S.C. § 2713(c).

Pursuant to the claims regulations, 33 C.F.R. § 136.233, a claimant must establish the following to prove 

loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity:

(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 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 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 undertaken, 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

The Claimant’s Submission to the OSLTF

In support of his claim, the Claimant submitted all of the documentation listed in enclosure (2).

Prior to presenting his claim to the NPFC, the Clamant filed an Interim Payment Claim Quarter III 2011 

(ICQ32011) with the GCCF for loss of profits and impairment of earnings capacity on 19 July 2011 in the 

amount of $80,201.10.6

 The Claimant was assigned Claimant ID # 3531987 and Claim ID # 9420225. 

The GCCF has sent the Claimant a Determination Letter that includes a Final Payment Offer on 24 

October 2011.7

 As of the writing of this determination, the Claimant has not accepted the final offer and 

it remains pending.8

6 Report from the GCCF dated 05 December 2011. 7 GCCF Re-Review Determination Letter on Final Payment Claim dated 24 October 2011. 8 GCCF Claimant Status Page.

 
Based upon the evidence provided by the Claimant, it appears that the subject matter for the GCCF claim 

is the same as the subject matter of his claim before the NPFC, i.e., that due to the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill, the Claimant experienced a combination of reduced sales and an increased price of goods that 

resulted in the suppression of business income. The NPFC deems the Claimant’s GCCF claim to be 

properly presented to the RP and properly presented to the NPFC. Accordingly, this Claim Summary 

Determination for NPFC Claim N10036-1558 considers and addresses the earnings claimed in the 

Claimant’s claim presented to the responsible party up to $80,201.10,9 specifically; GCCF Claim # 

9420225 (ICQ32011). 

NPFC Determination

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. The NPFC considered all documentation presented by the Claimant.

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.103(a), all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented first to the 

responsible party (RP). The Claimant presented an ICQ32011 for loss of profits and impairment of 

earnings capacity to the GCCF on 19 July 2011 with a claimed amount of $80,201.10.10 The Claimant 

then presented a claim for loss of profits and impairment of earnings capacity in the amount of 

$80,666.10 to the NPFC.11 Any claimed amount of damages exceeding $80,201.10 was not properly 

presented to the RP/GCCF pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 136.103(a) and is therefore denied.

Regarding the remaining claimed amount of $80,666.10, the Claimant asserts that due to the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, his restaurant and market experienced a combination of: an increase in the price of Gulf 

of Mexico seafood, an unavailability of Gulf of Mexico seafood, loss of customers as evidenced by 

reduced foot traffic in the restaurant, loss of customers due to a drop in tourism and overall decreased 

sales due to reduced customer confidence regarding seafood from the Gulf of Mexico.12 The NPFC 

addresses each of these assertions in the paragraphs below. In sum, however, the remainder of the claim 

is denied because the Claimant fails to prove either that he incurred an alleged loss in the amount claimed

or that his 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. Further, the evidence presented indicates that 

even if the Claimant had sustained a loss due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, he was able to 

successfully mitigate his losses through his business actions. 

Regarding the increase in price of Gulf of Mexico Seafood, the Claimant asserts that the wholesale price 

of shrimp purchased from Cox’s Wholesale Seafood increased from 2009-2010.13 The Claimant asserts 

that the increased price of wholesale shrimp suppressed the profit margin of the Claimant’s restaurant and 

market, ultimately resulting in reduced profits from 2010-2011.14 Although the price of shrimp increased 

from approximately $7.7515 per pound in 2009 to $9.1916 per pound in 2010, the menu price of shrimp at 

the Claimant’s restaurant and market in 2010 remained at its 2009 levels.17 Although the Claimant had 

the opportunity and ability to raise the price of shrimp sold to reflect the increased wholesale costs, the 

Claimant declined to do so. Accordingly, the Claimant made an independent business decision to absorb 

the increased costs of shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico in lieu of passing the price increase onto the 

9 See discussion below in NPFC Determination regarding the claimant amount of damages presented to the NPFC.

10 Report from the GCCF dated 05 December 2011. 11 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 12 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 13 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011, Letter from the Claimant to the NPFC dated 08 

November 2011. 14 Letter from the Claimant to the NPFC dated 08 November 2011, Letter from the Claimant to the GCCF dated 09 

July 2011.

15 PHONECON between the NPFC and Cox Wholesale Seafood dated 22 November 2011. 16 PHONECON between the NPFC and Cox Wholesale Seafood dated 22 November 2011. 17 PHONECON between the NPFC and the Claimant dated 30 November 2011.

 
customers of the Claimant’s restaurant and market. Thus, the Claimant’s own independent business 

decision was responsible for potential difference in profit margin for shrimp sales from 2009-2010. 

Regarding the unavailability of Gulf of Mexico seafood, 18 specifically oysters, 19 the NPFC was informed 

that AmeriPure, the company the Claimant obtained its Gulf of Mexico oysters from, did not sell oysters 

from June 2010-November 2010.20 The Claimant, however, was not precluded from purchasing oysters 

from other wholesalers or distributors. Indeed, the NPFC was informed that the reason AmeriPure ceased 

production of oysters was due to a business decision to shut down its processing plant because the low 

volume would make the business unprofitable.21 The evidence presented indicates that the Claimant made 

an independent business decision not to obtain oysters through other distribution channels after 

AmeriPure stopped selling oysters in of June 2010.

Regarding the Claimant’s claim for damages resulting from discounting lobster dinners,22 complimentary 

gourmet salads23 and appetizers24 as well as the costs of advertising,25 assuming for the sake of argument 

that these measures where necessary, the NPFC views these actions as measures in mitigation, which 

ultimately proved successful. As discussed below, the Claimant succeeded in increasing both the number 

of patrons and the amount of sales made from 2009-2010. 

Regarding the loss of customers as described by the Claimant as a ‘loss of foot traffic’,26 the Claimant 

fails to prove that the restaurant suffered from a decrease in customer traffic. Rather, based on the 

information provided by the Claimant, the total number of restaurant patrons increased from 2009 to 

2010. For example, in the Claimant’s provided Sales Report from 01 May 2009-31 May 2009 the 

number of guests visiting the restaurant totaled 5,474; with a split of 2,327 for lunch and 3,147 for 

dinner.27 During the same period in 2010, a period that should have been affected by the oil spill, the 

restaurant totaled 5,703 patrons; with a split of 2,134 for lunch and 3,569 for dinner.28 Although there 

were 193 fewer patrons visiting the restaurant for lunch in May 2010 than May 2009, there were 422 

more patrons visiting the restaurant for dinner in May 2010 than May 2009.29 Further, the total number 

of patrons visiting the restaurant in May 2010 compared to May 2009 increased by 229.30 Thus, based on 

the information provided by the Claimant, the Claimant fails to prove that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

negatively impacted the total number of patrons during the affected time period. 

Even if the Claimant could prove that the restaurant experienced a lower number of patrons in 2010 

compared to 2009, the Claimant fails to prove that he suffered a financial loss. Indeed, the Claimant’s 

submitted financial documentation shows that in the pre-oil spill year of 2009 the Claimant listed 

$1,513,005.54 in sales categorized under ‘Food and Restaurant’.31 In 2010, the year of the purported loss 

due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Claimant listed $1,702,302.42 in sales under the same 

18 In a phone conversation with Cox’s Wholesale Seafood on 22 November 2011 the NPFC was informed that 

although the price of shrimp increased in 2010, the Claimant was not precluded from purchasing shrimp. 

Accordingly, the Claimant’s assertion that certain seafood items from the Gulf of Mexico were unavailable did not 

apply to shrimp. 

19 In a phone conversation with AmeriPure on 22 November 2011, the NPFC was informed that beginning in June 

2010 and lasting until November 2010, AmeriPure ceased processing oysters for sale. Accordingly, without any 

additional assertion regarding unavailability from specific seafood from the Gulf of Mexico, the Claimant’s 

assertion regarding unavailability will be discussed regarding oysters. 20 PHONECON between the NPFC and AmeriPure Oysters dated 22 November 2011. 21 PHONECON between the NPFC and AmeriPure Oysters dated 22 November 2011. 22 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 23 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 24 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 25 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 26 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 27 Document titled ‘Sales Report’ for period 01 May 2010-31 May 2009. 28 Document titled ‘Sales Report’ for period 01 May 2010-31 May 2010. 29 Documents titled ‘Sales Report’ for periods 01 May 2009-31 May 2009, 01 May 2010-31 May 2010. 30 Documents titled ‘Sales Report’ for periods 01 May 2009-31 May 2009, 01 May 2010-31 May 2010. 31 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2009-31 December 2009.

 
category.32 Furthermore, comparing the pre-oil spill and post-oil spill periods of January-April and MayDecember for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 shows the same trend of increasing gross profit each year. 

From January-April in 2008, 2009 and 2010, the Claimant’s restaurant experienced yearly increases in 

average gross profits, with figures of $149,624.00, $189,938.00 and $214,758.00 respectively.33 Further, 

from 2008-2010, in the post-spill period of May-December, the Claimant’s restaurant experienced lower 

revenues for those eight months while still increasing the gross profit year over year with figures of 

$68,808.00, $94,156.00 and $105,408.00 respectively.34 Thus, although the Claimant’s restaurant 

experienced lower average gross profits from May 2010-December 2010 compared to January 2010-April 

2010, this matches the larger three year pattern of both reduced gross profits from May-December as well 

as the increased year over year sales during the same period. Accordingly, the Claimant fails to prove 

that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill negatively affected the Claimant’s restaurant sales. 

Additionally, the sales from the Claimant’s seafood market35 fail to reflect an effect due to the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. In the pre-spill period of January-April from 2008-2010, the Claimant’s market 

averaged monthly sales of $171,021.00, $153,011.00 and $152,889 respectively.36 Accordingly, the 

Claimant’s seafood market sales were on a downward trend beginning in 2008, with the largest year over 

year decrease occurring in the 2008-2009 period.37 Further, in the post-spill affected period of MayDecember from 2008-2010, the Claimant’s seafood market averaged monthly sales of $75,973.00, 

$63,429.00 and $68,278.00 respectively.38 Accordingly, the Claimant’s seafood market sales, after 

declining from 2008-2009, rebounded and increased from 2009-2010.39 Thus, the Claimant fails to prove 

that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill negatively affected the Claimant’s seafood market sales. Therefore, 

the Claimant fails to prove that his restaurant or seafood market experienced a loss due to the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill.

Regarding the Claimant’s assertion that the restaurant experienced decreased sales due to reduced 

tourism,40 the Claimant fails to provide evidence that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill negatively impacted 

tourism in the Naples, Florida region. Nevertheless, the NPFC obtained statistics provided by the official 

visitor website for Collier County,41 which includes Naples, that do not support the assertion that tourism 

substantially decreased in the region after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In the post-oil spill period in 

May 2010 and June 2010, the tourism numbers in fact increased from the same period in 2009 by 3.9%42

and 2.7%43 respectively. For the months of July 2010 through September 2010, the county experienced a 

decrease of 2.4%.44 The Claimant, however, experienced an increase in food and restaurant sales from 

32 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2010-31 December 2010. 33 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2008-31 December 2008, 

31 January 2009-31 December 2009, 31 January 2010-31 December 2010. 34 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2008-31 December 2008, 

31 January 2009-31 December 2009, 31 January 2010-31 December 2010. 35 In a phone conversation with the NPFC on 30 November 2011, the NPFC was informed that the documentation 

the Claimant submitted listing ‘Sales-Retail/Non-Taxable’ reflects the sales from the Claimant’s seafood market. 36 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2008-31 December 2008, 

31 January 2009-31 December 2009, 31 January 2010-31 December 2010. 37 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2008-31 December 2008, 

31 January 2009-31 December 2009. 38 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2009-31 December 2009, 

31 January 2010-31 December 2010. 39 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2009-31 December 2009, 

31 January 2010-31 December 2010. 40 Optional OSLTF Claim Form received 14 November 2011. 41 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research.php (last accessed 05 December 2011). 42 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1277149233_May%20Collier%20May%202010.pdf 

(last accessed 05 December 2011).

43 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1280235197_Collier%20June%202010.pdf (last 

accessed 05 December 2011).

44 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1288812067_CollierSep2010-REV.pdf (last accessed 

05 December 2011).

 
July 2010-September 2010 compared to the same period in 2009. The Claimant totaled $211,692.4345 in 

food and restaurant sales from July 2010-September 2010, an increase over the $198,038.2046 in food and 

restaurant sales from the same period in 2009. Furthermore, after September 2010, the tourism numbers 

rebounded strongly in October and November, with increases of 11%47 and 4.7%48 respectively. 

Although visitation in December 2010 declined by 2.2%49 compared to December 2009, importantly the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill was not listed as a reason for the decline.50 Indeed, the decline in December 

2010’s visitation profile is attributed to weather and related flight disruptions.51 Overall, despite the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, tourism in Naples in 2010 increased by 3.3% over 2009.52 Thus, the 

Claimant fails to prove that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill resulted in decreased sales at the restaurant 

and seafood market due to a reduction in tourism in Naples, Florida.

Regarding the Claimant’s assertion that the restaurant suffered reduced sales due to decreased customer 

confidence, the Claimant fails to provide evidence to support his assertion. As discussed above, the 

Claimant’s own submissions regarding the number of patrons visiting the restaurant in May 2010 

increased from May 2009.53 Further, as discussed above, the Claimant’s submitted financial information 

shows an increase in food and restaurant sales in 2010 compared to 2009.54 Accordingly, the Claimant 

fails to prove that the restaurant suffered decreased sales due to a lack of consumer confidence as a result 

of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

This claim is denied because the Claimant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate (1) that there was an 

alleged loss in the amount claimed, and (2) 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 Review: 1/11/12

Supervisor’s Actions: Denial approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

45 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2010-31 December 2010. 46 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2009-31 December 2009. 47 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1291397085_Collier%20October%202010.pdf (last 

accessed 05 December 2011). 48 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1292861030_Collier%20November%202010.pdf (last 

accessed 05 December 2011).

49 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1295534029_Collier%20December%202010.pdf (last 

accessed 05 December 2011). 50 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1295534029_Collier%20December%202010.pdf (last 

accessed 05 December 2011).

51 http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1295534029_Collier%20December%202010.pdf (last 

accessed 05 December 2011).

52http://www.paradisecoast.com/media_center/research_files/1305311135_TOURISM%20IMPACT%20FACTS%2

010.doc (last accessed 05 December 2011).

53 Documents titled ‘Sales Report’ for periods 01 May 2009-31 May 2009, 01 May 2010-31 May 2010. 54 Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2009-31 December 2009, 

31 January 2010-31 December 2010.

 
Enclosure (2)

Evidence Presented by the Claimant in Support of 

Claim N10036-1558

- Optional Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) Claim Form received 14 November 2011;

- Letter from the Claimant to the NPFC dated 08 November 2011;

- Document titled ‘Responsible Party Communications’;

- Document titled ‘Gulf Coast Claims Facility Protocol’ dated 08 February 2011;

- Letter from the Claimant to the GCCF dated 09 July 2011;

- Document titled ‘Permits, Registrations & Licenses’;

- Document titled ‘Itemized Damage Totals’;

- Spreadsheet titled ‘Cox’s Wholesale Seafood-Swan River Shrimp Purveyor’;

- Invoices from Cox’s Wholesale Seafood for dates 21 April 2010 and 21 September 2010;

- Document titled ‘[The Claimant] Vendor Quick Report’ for period January 2011-June 2011;

- Document titled ‘[The Claimant] Vendor Quick Report’ for period January 2010-December 2010;

- Document titled ‘[The Claimant] Vendor Quick Report’ for period January 2009-December 2009;

- Document titled ‘[The Claimant] Vendor Quick Report’ for period January 2008-December 2008;

- Document titled ‘[The Claimant] Oyster Losses, SYSCO Foods’;

- Invoice from Sysco dated 15 May 2009-09 November 2009, 03 May 2010-18 June 2010;

- Letter from the Claimant to Matthew Russell dated 09 February 2010;

- Letter from the Claimant to Jayne Meinert dated 09 February 2010;

- 2009 Federal Income Tax Summary for the Claimant;

- 2009 Federal Income Tax Return;

- 2010 Tangible Personal Property Tax Return for State of Florida, County of Collier;

- Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 30 September 2009-

31 December 2009;

- Invoices from Sysco for dates 13 April 2009-11 May 2009;

- Document titled ‘Mitigation Report’;

- Document titled ‘Sales Report’ for period 01 May 2010-31 May 2010, 01 May 2009-31 May 

2009 and 01 May 2008-31 May 2008;

- Map of Gulf of Mexico and surrounding states;

- Document titled ‘Profit Margin loss, Comparison of Menu Prices 2008-2011;

- Printout of the Claimant’s webpage;

- Letter from Matthew John Soldavini to the Claimant dated 01 February 2008;

- Letter from the Claimant to Joseph McLaughlin dated 01 February 2008;

- Letter from the Claimant to Matthew Ferreira dated 01 February 2008;

- Letter from the Claimant to Matthew Russell dated 01 February 2008;

- 2007 Federal Income Tax Summary for the Claimant;

- 2007 Federal Income Tax Return;

- 2008 Tangible Personal Property Tax Return, State of Florida, County of Collier;

- Letter from Matthew John Soldavini to the Claimant dated 06 March 2009;

- Letter from the Claimant to Joseph McLaughlin dated 06 March 2009;

- Letter from the Claimant to Matthew Ferreira dated 06 March 2009;

- Letter from the Claimant to Matthew Russell dated 06 March 2009;

- 2008 Federal Income Tax Summary;

- 2008 Federal Income Tax Return;

- 2009 Tangible Personal Property Tax Return, State of Florida, County of Collier;

- Letter from Matthew John Soldavivi to the Claimant dated 09 February 2010;

- Letter from the Claimant to Joseph McLaughlin dated 09 February 2010;

- Letter from the Claimant to Matthew Ferreira dated 09 February 2010;

- Statements of Revenues and Expenses-Income Tax Basis for months ending 31 January 2008-31 

August 2009, 31 January 2010-31 December 2010.