VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00357
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00357
Petitioner: Y.I.
Filed: 2015-04-09
Decided: 2016-09-21
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 
Condition: thrombocytopenic purpura
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Vera and Andrey Ivanchuk, as parents and natural guardians of their minor child Y.I., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on April 9, 2015. They alleged that Y.I. suffered from thrombocytopenic purpura following vaccinations, including the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The petition stated that Y.I. underwent a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy under anesthesia during a hospitalization, which they alleged constituted a surgical intervention. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On September 18, 2015, Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued a finding of fact concluding that Y.I. experienced hospitalization and surgical intervention within the meaning of the Vaccine Act. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on November 18, 2015, recommending compensation. The respondent agreed that Y.I.'s condition met the diagnostic criteria for thrombocytopenic purpura, noting an initial platelet count of 2,000, which is below the 50,000/mm3 threshold. The respondent also agreed that the onset of Y.I.'s condition occurred within the time period set by the Vaccine Injury Table for thrombocytopenic purpura following MMR vaccination. While the respondent initially objected to characterizing the bone marrow biopsy as a surgical intervention, they conceded that compensation was appropriate given Chief Special Master Dorsey's prior finding of fact. On November 19, 2015, Chief Special Master Dorsey issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Y.I. entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on February 4, 2016, the respondent filed a proffer on the award of compensation, which the petitioners agreed to. The decision, issued by Chief Special Master Dorsey, awarded an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract to cover all elements of compensation for Y.I. under the Vaccine Act. The annuity contract is to provide payments beginning December 29, 2026, with $18,218.65 payable annually for four years certain. The public decision does not describe the specific dates of vaccination, the specific dates of onset of symptoms, the specific clinical details of Y.I.'s condition beyond the platelet count, or the specific medical experts consulted. The attorneys for the petitioner were Jeffrey S. Pop of Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, and for the respondent, Christine Mary Becer of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that Y.I. suffered from thrombocytopenic purpura following administration of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The respondent conceded that Y.I.'s condition met the diagnostic criteria for thrombocytopenic purpura and that the onset occurred within the time period set by the Vaccine Injury Table for MMR vaccination. Petitioners also alleged that Y.I. underwent a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy under anesthesia, which constituted a surgical intervention. The respondent initially objected to this characterization but agreed compensation was appropriate given a prior finding of fact by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. Chief Special Master Dorsey ruled Y.I. entitled to compensation. A subsequent decision by Chief Special Master Dorsey awarded an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, based on a proffer agreed to by both parties. The annuity contract is to provide $18,218.65 annually for four years certain, beginning December 29, 2026. The theory of causation is based on the Vaccine Injury Table for thrombocytopenic purpura following MMR vaccination. The public text does not name specific medical experts or describe the mechanism of injury beyond the table-based presumption. Attorneys for the petitioner were Jeffrey S. Pop and for the respondent, Christine M. Becer. Decision dates were November 19, 2015 (entitlement) and February 4, 2016 (damages award).

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00357-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-10-20
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/18/2015) regarding 13 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-357V
Filed: September 18, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VERA IVANCHUK, as mother and *
Natural guardian, and ANDREY *
IVANCHUK, as father and natural *
Guardian of Y.I., *
*
Petitioners, * Finding of Fact; Surgical Intervention;
v. * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeffrey Pop, Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioners.
Christine Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
RULING ON FACTS1
On April 9, 2015, Vera and Andrey Ivanchuk [“petitioners”] filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.
§300aa-10, et seq, [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”] on behalf of their minor daughter,
Y.I. The petition alleges that following the April 17, 2012 administration of a number of
vaccinations, including Measles Mumps and Rubella (“MMR”), Y.I. experienced
Thrombocytopenic Purpura (“ITP”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit [“SPU”].
I. Procedural History
An initial status conference was held with the staff attorney managing this case
on June 22, 2015. During the status conference, petitioners’ counsel confirmed that
petitioners were alleging that Y.I.’s spinal tap and bone marrow biopsy, conducted
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be
posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). In accordance with Vaccine Rule
18(b), petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure
of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified
material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 4
under anesthesia, constituted a “surgical intervention” in satisfaction of the Vaccine
Act’s severity requirement at §300aa-11(c)(1)(D). See Scheduling Order, June 22,
2015 (ECF No. 9). In a status report of July 27, 2015, respondent’s counsel indicated
that upon review of the case, her client wished to file a Rule 4(c) report. See Status
Report, July 27, 2015 (ECF No. 10). In subsequent e-mail communication with the
court’s staff attorney, respondent’s counsel confirmed that her client was opposed to
settlement and wished to have a status conference with the Chief Special Master to
discuss petitioner’s contention that Y.I.’s bone marrow biopsy constituted a surgical
intervention.2
On September 17, 2015, I held a status conference with the parties. During the
call I indicated that I intended to rule on the question of whether Y.I.’s bone marrow
biopsy constitutes a surgical intervention for Program purposes. Respondent’s counsel
raised and preserved respondent’s objection to my ruling.
II. Facts
Y.I. was born on December 29, 2008. Ex. 1, p. 1. On April 17, 2012, she was seen
for her 3 year well child check-up at which she received the following vaccinations:
DTap-HIB-IPV, Hepatitis A, Pneumococcal Conjugate, MMR, and Varicella. Ex. 2; Ex. 5,
pp. 1-3.
Approximately one week later, on April 28, 2012, Y.I.’s mother reported unusual
bruising following a “minor bump.” Ex. 1, p. 2; Ex. 7, p. 18. The bruise worsened the
following day, and Y.I. also developed petechia, gingival bleeding, and bloody urine. Id.
On April 29, 2012, Y.I. was admitted to the emergency department on stretcher via
EMS and her case was classified as “urgent.” Ex. 7, pp. 127-28. She was diagnosed
with “severe” thrombocytopenia, having a platelet count of 2,000. Ex. 7, p. 19. She
remained hospitalized for 10 days. Ex. 7, p. 18-20.
Initially, Y.I. was given two rounds of IVIG.3 Ex. 7, p. 19. She experienced clinical
improvement, but no change in her platelet count. Id. She was later given
prednisolone, an oral steroid, beginning May 3, 2012, which improved her
thrombocytopenia by May 8, 2012, her discharge date. Id. During her hospitalization,
Y.I. underwent a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy “to rule out myeloprofliferative
disease prior to starting oral steroids.” Id.
Although Y.I. continued to have follow-up appointments to monitor her platelet
counts in the several months following discharge, petitioners do not contend that Y.I.’s
ITP persisted for at least six months. Petition at 3.
2 At the time of respondent’s counsel’s request, this case was on the docket of then Chief Special Master
Vowell. The case was transferred to my docket on August 7, 2015. See Notice of Reassignment, August
7, 2015 (ECF No. 12).
3 Petitioners have not alleged that Y.I.’s IVIG treatments constituted a surgical intervention.

Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 4
III. Discussion
In order to state a claim under the Vaccine Act, a vacinee must have either:
(i) suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability,
injury, or condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the
vaccine, or (ii) died from the administration of the vaccine, or (iii) suffered
such illness, disability, injury or condition from the vaccine which resulted
in inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention.
§300aa-11(c)(1)(D).
There is no definition of “surgical intervention” within the Vaccine Act. See
§300aa-33 (Definitions). Nor is there any Federal Circuit decision interpreting that term.
As described in prior decisions by special masters, the “surgical intervention” language
was added to the Vaccine Act to allow for recovery for intussusception, which often
requires surgery but does not typically persist for six months. See, e.g. Spooner v. HHS,
No. 13-159V, 2014 WL 504728 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 16, 2014); Stavridis v. HHS,
No. 07-261V, 2009 WL 3837479 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 29, 2009).
In Spooner, the special master interpreted surgical intervention as “the treatment
of a disease, injury and deformity with instruments or by the hands of a surgeon to
improve health or alter the course of a disease.” 2014 WL 504278, *10. In that case,
the special master based his definition of surgical intervention on entries from Dorland’s
Illustrated Medical Dictionary (29th Edition). 2014 WL 504278, *10. He noted that the
Federal Circuit has approved of the use of medical dictionaries to define medical terms.
Id. (citing Abbot v. HHS, 19 F.3d 39 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). I agree with the definition of
surgical intervention identified in Spooner.4
In Spooner, utilizing the above definition, the special master determined that a
lumbar puncture conducted under general anesthesia was surgical in nature, but did not
constitute an “intervention,” because it was diagnostic and not necessary for treatment.
Id. at 12. Conversely, he determined that IVIG, though for treatment, was not surgical in
nature. Id.
4 I do note that in the earlier Stavridis decision, the chief special master rejected essentially the same
definition adopted in Spooner, contending that it was overly broad. 2009 WL 3837479, *4. In that case,
the chief special master accepted the unrebutted opinion of respondent’s medical expert that steroid
treatments and blood transfusions should not be understood as surgical interventions. Id. at *6. That
decision did acknowledge, however, that there is a “large gray area between treatments that are definitely
considered ‘surgical intervention’ and those that are not.” Id. at *6. In this case, I find that the medical
records offer sufficient detail to address this issue without the need for further medical opinion. I also
note that in this case respondent’s counsel cited approvingly to the Spooner decision during the status
conference.

Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 4 of 4
In this case, there is no question that Y.I. underwent a surgical procedure. In
order to perform the bone marrow aspiration and biopsy, Y.I. was placed under
anesthesia and the procedure was performed by a physician. See, e.g. Ex. 7, p. 1, 190.
A preoperative checklist was completed. Ex. 7, pp. 130-31. Her mother signed a
consent for an operative procedure.5 The authorization form identified possible risks of
pain, bleeding and infection. Ex. 7, pp. 5-6. Following the procedure, Y.I. was
monitored with Aldrete scoring to assess her recovery from anesthesia. Ex. 7, p. 4.
I also find that Y.I.’s bone marrow aspiration and biopsy constituted an
intervention. Although a bone marrow biopsy is in itself not a treatment that alters the
course of a disease or condition, under the facts of this case that is an incomplete
characterization.6 Y.I.’s medical records indicate that "a bone marrow biopsy was
performed to rule out myeloproliferative disease prior to starting oral steroids . . ." Ex 7,
p. 19. The same record indicates that the oral steroid effectively improved Y.I.’s ITP. Id.
Because the medical record explicitly indicates that the bone marrow biopsy was
required in order to institute treatment, the bone marrow biopsy was a necessary and
integral part of the overall treatment protocol that ultimately cured Y.I.’s ITP. I also find
it significant that at three years of age at the time of the procedure, Y.I. was incredibly
young. It is highly unlikely that her treating physician would have subjected her to an
invasive procedure of this nature without sufficient need.7
Finally, I note that this finding is narrowly tailored to the facts and circumstances
presented by this case. It is not a finding that bone marrow biopsy constitutes a surgical
intervention in all circumstances.
IV. Conclusion
For all these reasons, I find that Y.I. experienced hospitalization and surgical
intervention within the meaning of §300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(iii) of the Vaccine Act.
s/ Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
5 The authorization form used in Y.I.’s case is titled “Authorization for Administration of Anesthesia and for
Performance of Operations and Other Procedures.” Ex. 7, pp. 5-6.
6 During the status conference, respondent’s counsel argued that a bone marrow biopsy is a diagnostic
procedure and that under the reasoning in Spooner, petitioners’ claim should be dismissed. I find,
however, that this case is factually distinct from Spooner. Of course, even if the facts of the two cases
were identical, I am not bound by the decision of another special master.
7 It is also worth noting that, as described above, Y.I.’s bone marrow biopsy was performed in the course
of a hospitalization following admission to the emergency department as an “urgent” case of “severe” ITP.
In addition to the definition described in Spooner, Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary also defines an
intervention as “the procedures involved in responding to an emergency.” Dorland’s (32nd Ed.), p. 952.
This suggests the need to identify appropriate treatment protocol on an urgent basis and provides
additional rationale for considering the treatment protocol as a whole an “intervention.”

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00357-2
Date issued/filed: 2016-09-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/19/2015) regarding 18 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 38 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-357V
Filed: November 19, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VERA IVANCHUK, as mother and, *
natural guardian, and *
ANDREY IVANCHUK, as father and *
natural guardian of Y.I. *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement;
* Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR);
* Thrombocytopenic purpura;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Table Injury; Special Processing Unit
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On April 9, 2015, petitioners filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 [the “Vaccine
Act” or “Program”]. Petitioners allege that their minor child, Y.I., experienced
thrombocytopenic purpura following the administration of a number of vaccinations,
including Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR). Petition at 1-2. Although Y.I.’s alleged
injury did not persist for at least six months, petitioners alleged that Y.I. underwent a
surgical intervention as a result of her vaccination(s), because she underwent a bone
marrow aspiration and biopsy under anesthesia during her hospitalization. Id. at 2-3.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post it 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), petitioner has 14 days to
identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 38 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2
On September 18, 2015, the undersigned issued a finding of fact concluding that
“Y.I. experienced hospitalization and surgical intervention within the meaning of §300aa-
11(c)(1)(D)(iii) of the Vaccine Act.” ECF No. 13 at 4.
On November 18, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she
recommends that compensation be awarded in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 1. Specifically, respondent agreed that Y.I.’s injury meets the diagnostic
criteria for thrombocytopenic purpura in that her initial platelet count was 2,000, below
the 50,000/mm3 threshold identified by the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(QAI). Respondent also agreed that the onset of Y.I.’s condition was within the requisite
time period set by the Vaccine Injury Table for thrombocytopenic purpura following
MMR vaccination Id. at 3-4.
Respondent further stated that she “objects to the characterization of the bone
marrow biopsy as a surgical intervention. However, given Chief Special Master
Dorsey’s Finding of Fact on September 18, 2015, that the bone marrow biopsy was a
surgical intervention, respondent has concluded that compensation is appropriate . . .”3
Id.
In view of respondent’s recommendation that compensation be awarded
and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to
compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 Respondent further indicated that she wished to reserve her right to seek appellate review of this
determination. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 4, fn. 3.

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00357-3
Date issued/filed: 2016-09-21
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/04/2016) regarding 28 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 39 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-357V
Filed: February 4, 2016
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VERA IVANCHUK, as mother and *
Natural guardian, and *
ANDREY IVANCHUK, as father and *
Natural guardian of Y.I., *
*
Petitioners, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
* Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR);
* Thrombocytopenic purpura; Table injury;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA for petitioners.
Christine Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On April 9, 2015, Vera and Andrey Ivanchuk (“petitioners”) filed a petition for
compensation on behalf of Y.I., their minor child, under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act” or
“Program”). The petition alleged that Y.I. experienced thrombocytopenic purpura
following the administration of a number of vaccinations, including Measles, Mumps,
and Rubella (MMR). Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post it 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), petitioner has 14 days to
identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 39 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 5
On November 19, 2015, the undersigned issued a ruling on entitlement, finding
petitioners entitled to compensation. On February 4, 2016, respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”). Respondent proffers that, based upon her review of
the evidence of record, petitioners should be awarded an amount sufficient to purchase
an annuity contract as described in Proffer Section I.A. Petitioners agrees.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the undersigned awards
the following:
• An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in the
Proffer Section I.A. This amount represents all elements of compensation to
which Y.I. would be entitled under § 300aa-15(a).
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the
clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT herewith.3
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.

Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 39 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
____________________________________
)
VERA IVANCHUK, as mother and )
natural guardian, and )
ANDREY IVANCHUK, as father and )
natural guardian of Y.I., )
)
)
Petitioners, ) No. 15-357V
) Chief Special Master Dorsey
v. ) ECF
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Items of Compensation and Form of Award
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers, and the parties recommend that
compensation be made through future annuity payments as described below, and request that the
special master's decision and the Court's judgment award the following1:
A. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract,2 paid to the life insurance
company3 from which the annuity will be purchased,4 subject to the conditions described
below, that will provide payments to Y.I. as set forth below:
1 Respondent reserves her right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of Chief Special Master
Dorsey’s Ruling on Facts dated September 18, 2015. This right accrues following the Chief Special Master’s
issuance of a final decision on damages.
2 In respondent’s discretion, respondent may purchase one or more annuity contracts from one or more life
insurance companies.
3 The Life Insurance Company must have a minimum of $250,000,000 capital and surplus, exclusive of any
mandatory security valuation reserve. The Life Insurance Company must have one of the following ratings from
two of the following rating organizations:
a. A.M. Best Company: A++, A+, A+g, A+p, A+r, or A+s;
1

Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 39 Filed 09/21/16 Page 4 of 5
1. Beginning December 29, 2026, $18,218.65 payable annually for four (4) years
certain only.5
Should Y.I. predecease any of the certain payments set forth above, said payments shall be made
to her estate. Written notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to the Life
Insurance Company shall be provided within twenty (20) days of Y.I.’s death.6
This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LINDA S. RENZI
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
b. Moody's Investor Service Claims Paying Rating: Aa3, Aa2, Aa1, or Aaa;
c. Standard and Poor's Corporation Insurer Claims-Paying Ability Rating: AA-, AA, AA+, or
AAA;
d. Fitch Credit Rating Company, Insurance Company Claims Paying Ability Rating: AA-, AA,
AA+, or AAA.
4 Petitioner authorizes the disclosure of certain documents filed by the petitioner in this case consistent with the
Privacy Act and the routine uses described in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program System of
Records, No. 09-15-0056.
5 At the time payment is received, Y.I. will be an adult, and thus guardianship is not required.
6 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate
relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and
future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:15-vv-00357-UNJ Document 39 Filed 09/21/16 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Christine M. Becer
CHRISTINE M. BECER
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-3665
Dated: February 3, 2016
3