IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 08-882V 

Filed: September 10, 2014 

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

LUIS VERGARA and JACKELINE MORA * 

ANGARITA, parents and natural guardians, * 

J.A.V., a minor, * 

 * 

 Petitioners, * Autism; Petitioners’ Motion for a 

 * Decision Dismissing the 

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT * Insufficient Petition; Proof of 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Causation; Vaccine Act 

 * Entitlement; Denial Without 

 Respondent. * Hearing 

 * 

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

Donald Gerstein, Esq., Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY for petitioners. 

Justine Daigneault, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent. 

DECISION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master: 

On December 11, 2008, petitioners filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),

2

 on behalf of their 

minor child J.A.V. 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, 

I intend 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), petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that 

satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(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, 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 May 5, 2014, I issued a Ruling on Facts and Order, which rejected 

petitioners’ contention that the encephalopathy referenced in J.A.V.’s medical records 

constitutes a Table encephalopathy and also rejected some of their testimony provided 

at a hearing held on February 20, 2013 in Miami, FL. I ordered petitioners to file an 

expert report by no later than July 14, 2014, addressing their original causation claim: 

that one or more of the vaccines that J.A.V. received in April 2007 can cause an autism 

spectrum disorder, and that they did so in J.A.V.’s case. I later ordered to extend 

petitioners’ deadline to file an expert report until September 12, 2014.

 On September 9, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Decision Dismissing 

Petition. To receive compensation under the Program, petitioners must prove either 1) 

that J.A.V. suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury 

Table – corresponding to one of J.A.V.’s vaccinations, or 2) that J.A.V. suffered an 

injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any evidence that J.A.V. 

suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s 

opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that J.A.V.’s alleged injury was 

vaccine-caused. 

 Under the Act, petitioners may not be given 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. § 300aa-13(a)(1). In this case, 

because there are insufficient medical records supporting petitioners’ claim, a medical 

opinion must be offered in support. Petitioners, however, have offered no such opinion. 

 

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

demonstrate either that J.A.V. suffered a “Table Injury” or that J.A.V.’s injuries were 

“actually caused” by a vaccination. Thus, 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