VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00055
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00055
Petitioner: L.E.H.
Filed: 2018-01-25
Decided: 2018-03-01
Vaccine: Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 
Condition: allergic reaction
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 45000

AI-assisted case summary:
Ryan Horton and Karin Jonch-Clasen, as parents of L.E.H., filed a petition on January 25, 2018, on behalf of their minor child, L.E.H. They alleged that L.E.H. suffered an allergic reaction as a result of receiving the Hepatitis A vaccine on May 12, 2015, and the Hepatitis B vaccine on November 25, 2015. Petitioners further alleged that L.E.H. experienced residual effects of this condition for more than six months. The respondent denied that the vaccines caused L.E.H.'s allergic reaction or any other injury. However, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on January 25, 2018, while maintaining their respective positions. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded L.E.H. a lump sum of $45,000.00, payable by check to Petitioners, as compensation for all damages. The Special Master approved this award and directed the clerk to enter judgment. Andrew Mark Krueger represented the Petitioners, and Alexis B. Babcock represented the Respondent. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of the alleged allergic reaction.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that L.E.H. suffered an allergic reaction as a result of receiving the Hepatitis A vaccine on May 12, 2015, and the Hepatitis B vaccine on November 25, 2015, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a stipulation to settle the case, with Petitioners receiving $45,000.00 in damages. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury, stating only that the parties agreed to settle while maintaining their positions. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the decision on March 1, 2018, approving the stipulation. Petitioners' counsel was Andrew Mark Krueger, and Respondent's counsel was Alexis B. Babcock.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00055-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-03-01
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/25/2018) Regarding 26 DECISION Stipulation, (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00055-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-55V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RYAN HORTON and KARIN *
JONCH-CLASEN as the parents of L.E.H., *
* Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioners, * Filed: January 25, 2018
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Hepatitis A (“Hep A”) Vaccine; Hepatitis
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * B (“Hep B”) Vaccine; Allergic Reaction.
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Mark Krueger, Krueger & Hernandez, Middleton, WI, for Petitioners.
Alexis B Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 13, 2017, Ryan Horton and Karin Jonch-Clasen filed a petition of behalf of
their minor child, L.E.H., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioners allege that L.E.H. suffered from an allergic reaction,
as a result of receiving the Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B vaccines on May 12, 2015, and November
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This
means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged
or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision in its present form will be
available. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).

Case 1:17-vv-00055-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/01/18 Page 2 of 8
25, 2015, respectively. Petitioners further allege that L.E.H. has experienced the residual effects
of this condition for more than six months.
Respondent denies that the vaccines caused L.E.H.’s allergic reaction or any other injury.
Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation
(filed on January 25, 2018) that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should
be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation
(as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the
terms set forth therein.
The stipulation awards:
 A lump sum of $45,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioners.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a) of the Act.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:17-vv-00055-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/01/18 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:17-vv-00055-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/01/18 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:17-vv-00055-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/01/18 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:17-vv-00055-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/01/18 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:17-vv-00055-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/01/18 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:17-vv-00055-UNJ Document 30 Filed 03/01/18 Page 8 of 8