# In **the United States Court of Federal Claims**

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1 537 V

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* 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 DAMAGES 1

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 allege d 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 mo nths.

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. § 300 aa

- 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 b y 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.” Va ccine 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. §§ 300a a

- 10 through 34 (20 12) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”)

. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix)

.Respondent denies that the alleged significant aggravation of K.J.I.’s pre

- existing AA or

its residual effect were caused

- in

- fac t by the Tdap vaccine. Respondent also denies that the Tdap

vaccines caused K.J.I. any other injury or her current condi tion. Nonetheless both parties, while

maintaining their above

- stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on J uly 2 5 , 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 $ 1 0,000.00 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 pay ment 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 RCF C Appendix B, the Clerk of

the C ourt 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 (e ither jointly or separately)

a notice renouncing their right to seek review.