VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02031
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02031
Petitioner: A.I.
Filed: 2021-10-18
Decided: 2022-11-18
Vaccine: hepatitis A
Vaccination date: 2020-09-05
Condition: SIRVA or pilomatricoma allegedly following hepatitis A vaccine
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 30000

AI-assisted case summary:
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.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that infant A.I. received a Hepatitis A vaccine on September 5, 2020, and subsequently suffered either a Table SIRVA or a pilomatricoma caused-in-fact by the vaccine, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied a Table injury, denied the vaccine caused the pilomatricoma or any other injury, and denied vaccine-related sequelae. The case was resolved by joint stipulation, not by a litigated causation ruling. The public decision does not specify A.I.'s age, injection site details, symptom onset, medical findings, treatment, or expert opinions. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the parties' stipulation on November 18, 2022, awarding $30,000.00 as a lump sum to purchase an annuity contract, representing all Section 15(a) damages. Petitioner's counsel was Victoria Wickman; Respondent's counsel was Naseem Kourosh.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-02031-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-20
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/18/2022) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-2031V
UNPUBLISHED
RACHEL IOSPA, as mother and Chief Special Master Corcoran
natural guardian of A.I., an infant,
Filed: November 18, 2022
Petitioner,
v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
Stipulation on Damages; Hepatitis A
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND (Hep A) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
HUMAN SERVICES, Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA); Pilomatricoma
Respondent.
Victoria Wickman, Law Office of Victoria Wickman, NY, NY, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On October 18, 2021, Rachel Iospa filed a petition, on behalf of her minor child,
A.I., for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42
U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that A.I. suffered a
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) which meets the Table
definition or pilomatricoma which was caused-in-fact by the Hepatitis A (“Hep A”) vaccine
A.I. received on September 5, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 14, 16-17; Stipulation, filed at
Nov. 17, 2022, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that A.I. received the Hep A vaccine
within the United States, continues to suffer the residual effects of this injury more than
six months post-vaccination, and that neither Petitioner nor any other party has filed a
civil action or received compensation for A.I.’s injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 10-12; Stipulation
at ¶¶ 3-5. Respondent denies that A.I. sustained a Table injury; denies that the vaccine
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to 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 note (2012) (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), 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 2 of 9
caused A.I.’s alleged pilomatricoma, or any other injury; and denies that A.I.’s current
condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on November 18, 2022, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the
stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set
forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $30,000.00 to purchase the annuity contract described in
paragraph 10 of the Stipulation. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents
compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section
15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of
a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
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.
2

Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 7 of 9

Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:21-vv-02031-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/20/22 Page 9 of 9