VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01727
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01727
Petitioner: L.I.
Filed: 2021-08-18
Decided: 2025-07-31
Vaccine: hepatitis A
Vaccination date: 2018-08-22
Condition: inflammatory bowel disease
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Rivka and Mordechie Iliovits, parents and natural guardians of L.I., a minor, filed a petition on August 18, 2021, alleging that a hepatitis A vaccine L.I. received on August 22, 2018, caused her to develop inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) within 19 days. The petitioners submitted medical records and affidavits. On January 21, 2025, they filed an expert report from Dr. Wanda Phipatanakul, a board-certified allergist/immunologist, who opined that the hepatitis A vaccine led to L.I.'s IBD through potential mechanisms such as molecular mimicry, immune response dysregulation, or epitope mimicry, and that 19 days was an acceptable timeframe for IBD onset. On February 10, 2025, they filed an expert report from Dr. W. Michael McDonnell, a gastroenterologist, who opined that L.I.'s diagnosis was IBD. The Secretary of Health and Human Services filed a report on August 23, 2024, contesting entitlement and arguing that the petitioners had not provided preponderant evidence of causation satisfying the Althen prongs, nor sufficient medical evidence or an expert report supporting causation. On April 10, 2025, the respondent filed expert reports from Dr. Andrew J. MacGinnitie, a board-certified allergist/immunologist, and Dr. Subra Kugathasan, a board-certified pediatric gastroenterologist. Dr. MacGinnitie opined that the petitioners provided no support for how the proposed mechanisms of the hepatitis A vaccination could cause IBD and disputed the timing of IBD onset. Dr. Kugathasan opined that L.I.'s IBD diagnosis was not related to her vaccination. The petitioners did not submit any supplemental expert reports. On June 27, 2025, the petitioners moved for a decision dismissing their petition. Special Master Christian J. Moran granted the motion, finding that the petitioners had failed to meet their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to show a medical theory connecting the vaccine to the injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, and a proximate temporal relationship, as required by Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs. The case was dismissed with prejudice for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that the hepatitis A vaccine administered on August 22, 2018, caused L.I. to develop inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) within 19 days. Petitioners' experts, Dr. Wanda Phipatanakul and Dr. W. Michael McDonnell, opined that the vaccine caused IBD through mechanisms including molecular mimicry, immune dysregulation, or epitope mimicry, and that the 19-day onset was acceptable. Respondent's experts, Dr. Andrew J. MacGinnitie and Dr. Subra Kugathasan, disputed the proposed mechanisms, the timing of onset, and the causal link between the vaccine and the IBD diagnosis. The Special Master found that petitioners failed to provide preponderant evidence of a medical theory connecting the vaccine and injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect, or a proximate temporal relationship, as required by Althen. Petitioners subsequently moved to dismiss their own case. The case was dismissed with prejudice for insufficient proof. Attorneys for petitioner were Robert Joel Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C. Attorneys for respondent were Julianna Rose Kober, United States Dep’t of Justice. Special Master was Christian J. Moran. Decision date was July 31, 2025. The theory of causation was off-Table.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01727-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-31
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/02/2025) regarding 103 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (jjb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01727-UNJ Document 108 Filed 07/31/25 Page 1 of 4
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RIVKA ILIOVITS AND *
MORDECHIE ILIOVITS, parents *
and natural guardians of L.I., *
a minor * No. 21-1727V
*
Petitioner, *
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. *
* Filed: July 2, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert Joel Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, NY, for
petitioner;
Julianna Rose Kober, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION DENYING COMPENSATION1
Rivka Iliovits and Mordechie Iliovits (“petitioners”) alleged that a hepatitis
A vaccine their daughter, L.I., received on August 22, 2018 caused L.I. to suffer
from inflammatory bowel disease (“IBD”). On June 27, 2025, petitioners moved
for a decision dismissing their petition.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it
must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal
Claims’ website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in
accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal
Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will
be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), the
parties have 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure
of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the
document posted on the website.

Case 1:21-vv-01727-UNJ Document 108 Filed 07/31/25 Page 2 of 4
I. Procedural History
Petitioners filed a petition for compensation on August 18, 2021, alleging
that the hepatitis A vaccine their daughter, L.I., received on August 22, 2018
caused L.I. to suffer from IBD by 19 days later. Am. Pet. at 1-3. They filed
medical records and affidavits over the next few months.
The Secretary filed his Rule 4(c) report on August 23, 2024, contesting
entitlement. The Secretary argued that petitioners had not provided preponderant
evidence of causation satisfying the Althen prongs between L.I.’s condition and
the hepatitis A vaccine. Resp’t’s Rep. at 9-10. Further, the Secretary noted that
petitioners had not submitted an expert report in support of their claim, nor other
preponderant medical evidence supporting causation sufficient to meet their
burden of proof. Id. at 10.
On January 21, 2025, petitioners filed an expert report from Dr. Wanda
Phipatanakul, a board-certified allergist/immunologist. Exhibit 25. Dr.
Phipatanakul opined that the hepatitis A vaccine that L.I. received led her to
develop IBD through potential mechanisms such as molecular mimicry,
dysregulation of the normal dampening of the immune response, or epitope
mimicry. Id. at 7-9. Dr. Phipatanakul also opined that 19 days is an acceptable
timeframe for onset for L.I.’s IBD. Id. at 9-11.
On February 10, 2025, petitioners filed an expert report from Dr. W.
Michael McDonnell, a gastroenterologist. Exhibit 39. Dr. McDonnell opined that
L.I.’s diagnosis was IBD. Id. at 6.
On April 10, 2025, respondent filed his expert reports from Dr. Andrew J.
MacGinnitie, a board-certified allergist/immunologist, and Dr. Subra Kugathasan,
a board-certified pediatric gastroenterologist. Exhibits A and C. Dr. MacGinnitie
opined that petitioners did not provide any support for how the proposed
mechanisms of L.I.’s hepatitis A vaccination can cause IBD. Exhibit A at 6-11.
Dr. MacGinnitie also disputed timing of IBD onset. Id. at 11-12. Dr. Kugathasan
opined that L.I.’s IBD diagnosis was not related to her vaccination. Exhibit C at
11-12.
Petitioner did not submit any supplemental expert reports.
II. Analysis
2

Case 1:21-vv-01727-UNJ Document 108 Filed 07/31/25 Page 3 of 4
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program (“Program”), a petitioner must prove either 1) that the vaccinee suffered a
“Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations, or 2) that the vaccinee suffered an injury
that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-
11(c)(1). Under the Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based
solely on the petitioner’s 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, petitioners filed medical records, affidavits, and expert reports.
Nonetheless, petitioners wish to have their claim dismissed and judgment entered
against them. Petitioners filed their dismissal pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(b).
Pet’rs’ Mot., filed June 27, 2025.
To conform to section 12(d)(3), a decision must “include findings of fact
and conclusions of law.” For causation-in-fact cases, the Federal Circuit has
defined elements of a petitioner’s claim. Petitioners bear a burden to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the vaccination brought about their injury by
providing:
(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury;
(2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was
the reason for the injury; and
(3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and
injury.
Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Petitioners did not propose a medical theory causally connecting the
vaccinations with the injury with preponderant evidence. Petitioners did not
provide sufficient, preponderant evidence demonstrating a logical sequence of
cause and effect that the hepatitis A vaccine was the reason for L.I.’s injuries.
Additionally, petitioners were unable to provide preponderant evidence showing a
proximate temporal relationship between her vaccine and injury. Petitioners have
therefore not met their burden under Althen.
3

Case 1:21-vv-01727-UNJ Document 108 Filed 07/31/25 Page 4 of 4
Thus, the Motion for Decision is GRANTED and this case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly. 2 See Vaccine Rule 21(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
2 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.
4