No with regards to the specific ruling cited, and no in the broader sense since the U.S. Courts have previously ruled against the link.
The legalese can be tough to parse but the ruling is pretty clear that the respondent, in this case the Secretary of Health and Human Services agreed with the petitioners' claim that Ryan Mojabi suffered encephalitis as a result of the MMR vaccination:
On June 9, 2011, respondent filed a supplemental report pursuant to
Vaccine Rule 4(c) stating it was respondent’s view that Ryan suffered
a Table injury under the Vaccine Act – namely, an encephalitis within
five to fifteen days following receipt of the December 19, 2003 MMR
vaccine, see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(III)(B), and that this case is
appropriate for compensation under the term s of the Vaccine Program.
It looks like the petitioners originally claimed that an Autism Spectrum
Disorder was caused by the vaccination,
Petitioners alleged that as a result of “all the vaccinations
administered to [Ryan] from March 25, 2003, through February 22, 2005,
and more specifically, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations
administered to him on December 19, 2003 and May 10, 2004,” Ryan
suffered “a severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as
Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’).”
But the specific injury was encephalopathy,
Petitioners specifically asserted that Ryan “suffered a Vaccine Table
Injury, namely, an encephalopathy” as a result of his receipt of the
MMR vaccination on December 19, 2003.
With regards to the broader question, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has a vaccine court that requires that the petitioners demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccine caused an injury that they would not have otherwise suffered. In the event that a causal connection is found, a no-fault ruling allows for compensation to cover medical expenses, legal expenses, loss of future earning capability, etc.
In response to all of the autism claims, an Omnibus Autism Proceeding (Wikipedia summary) took place that ruled against a link between the MMR vaccination and autism. All of the relevant rulings can be found at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims - Autism Decisions and Background Information. In the first omnibus ruling the special master make the following ruling:
After considering the record as a whole, I hold that petitioners have
failed to establish by preponderant evidence that Colten’s condition
was caused or significantly aggravated by a vaccine or any component
thereof. The evidence presented was both voluminous and
extraordinarily complex. After careful consideration of all of the
evidence, it was abundantly clear that petitioners’ theories of
causation were speculative and unpersuasive. Respondent’s experts were
far more qualified, better supported by the weight of scientific
research and authority, and simply more persuasive on nearly every
point in contention. Because of pervasive quality control problems at
a now-defunct laboratory that tested a key piece of evidence,
petitioners could not reliably demonstrate the presence of a
persistent measles virus in Colten’s central nervous system.
Petitioners failed to establish that measles virus can cause autism or
that it did so in Colten. They failed to demonstrate that amount of
ethylmercury in TCVs causes immune system suppression or
dysregulation. They failed to show that Colten’s immune system was
dysregulated. Although Colten’s condition markedly improved between
his diagnosis and the hearing, the experimental treatments he received
cannot be logically or scientifically linked to the theories of
causation. Given the advice that petitioners received from a treating
physician, Colten’s parents brought this action in good faith and upon
a reasonable basis. However, they have failed to demonstrate vaccine
causation of Colten’s condition by a preponderance of the evidence.
Therefore, I deny their petition for compensation.
The ruling of which was upheld upon review.