VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01537
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01537
Petitioner: K.J.I.
Filed: 2018-10-04
Decided: 2022-07-26
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2017-05-08
Condition: significant aggravation of her pre-existing alopecia areata
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 10000

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 4, 2018, Kristen Iniguez filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, K.J.I., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that K.J.I. received a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on May 8, 2017, and subsequently suffered a significant aggravation of her pre-existing alopecia areata, with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused K.J.I.'s condition or any other injury. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on July 25, 2022. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and approved the stipulation, adopting it as his decision. The stipulation awarded K.J.I. a lump sum of $10,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner as guardian/conservator of K.J.I.'s estate, as compensation for all damages. The decision noted that the parties could object to the inclusion of certain confidential information for redaction. Judgment was to be entered unless a motion for review was filed.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that K.J.I., a minor, suffered a significant aggravation of her pre-existing alopecia areata as a result of receiving a Tdap vaccine on May 8, 2017, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused the alleged aggravation or any other injury. The parties reached a stipulation to settle the case, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran approved the stipulation, awarding $10,000.00. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or detailed clinical findings supporting the petitioner's theory of causation or the respondent's denial. The award was based on a settlement agreement rather than a finding of causation on the merits.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01537-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/26/2022) regarding 70 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (saj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01537-UNJ Document 71 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1537V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Chief Special Master Corcoran
KRISTEN INIGUEZ, *
K.J.I., by and through her mother, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: July 26, 2022
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lisa Annette Roquemore, Law Office of Lisa A. Roquemore, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, for
Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 4, 2018, Kristen Iniguez filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, K.J.I.,
seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine
Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that K.J.I. she suffered from a significant aggravation of her pre-
existing alopecia areata (“AA”) as a result of her May 8, 2017 receipt of the tetanus, diphtheria,
and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine, and that she experienced residual effects of this injury
for more than six months.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States
Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). 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 will
be available to the public. 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”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:18-vv-01537-UNJ Document 71 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 2
Respondent denies that the alleged significant aggravation of K.J.I.’s pre-existing AA or
its residual effect were caused-in-fact by the Tdap vaccine. Respondent also denies that the Tdap
vaccines caused K.J.I. any other injury or her current condition. Nonetheless both parties, while
maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on July 25, 2022) 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 $10,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner as
guardian/conservator of K.J.I’s estate.
Stipulation ¶ 6. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a) of the Act. The Stipulation puts forth the requirements for payment to the
estate. See Stipulation at 2–3.
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
Chief 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.