Rachel Iospa v. HHS - Hepatitis A, SIRVA or pilomatricoma allegedly following hepatitis A vaccine (2022)

On October 18, 2021, Rachel Iospa, as mother and natural guardian of her infant child A.I., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleged that A.I. received a Hepatitis A vaccine on September 5, 2020, and subsequently suffered either a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) meeting the Vaccine Table definition, or alternatively, a pilomatricoma caused-in-fact by the vaccination.

The petition further stated that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that A.I. continued to experience residual effects more than six months post-vaccination, and that no civil action had been filed or compensation received for the injury. Respondent denied that A.I. sustained a Table injury, denied that the vaccine caused the alleged pilomatricoma or any other injury, and denied that A.I.'s current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.

The parties subsequently filed a joint stipulation on November 18, 2022. Chief Special Master Brian H.

Corcoran reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as his decision. The decision awarded compensation in the form of a lump sum of $30,000.00 to purchase an annuity contract, representing all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act.

Petitioner was represented by Victoria Wickman of the Law Office of Victoria Wickman in New York, New York, and Respondent was represented by Naseem Kourosh of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The public decision does not provide details regarding A.I.'s exact age, the injection site, the onset of symptoms, medical visits, imaging, pathology, treatment, or expert reports. It also does not analyze the medical differences between the SIRVA and pilomatricoma theories.