early onset in many instances they also said that there is an analogous disease similarly rare where it has a rapid onset well there there there were at least were analogous she said they were analogous but as our expert in his literature indicated they are not analogous the mylan in the profile nervous system is structurally different chemically different than central nervous system on so well there are legal or was in fact committed by the special master we believe it was not petitioner had a burden to prove upon the fashion case for causation which included establishing by pattern evidence that her condition came about in a medically appropriate timeframe not a literal timeframe which eleven hours certainly yes but a medically appropriate timeframe and they did not provide kind or an evidence according to the special master that eleven hours is an appropriate time disprove alternative causes alternative causation was not an issue in this case it was purely whether or not she had met the burden of the stab machine that the vaccine caused in fact her injury the vaccine didn't cause it something else  correct but as long as the special master considered the relevant evidence in the record and drew plausible inference isn't articulated a rational basis for his decision it's hard to find a burst of belair maybe two people could come to a dig can come to different conclusion it's possible she had a vaccine ten or eleven years prior there was the medical records that said there was one vaccine tetanus vaccine ten or eleven years prior the daughter said i don't know and there was some doctor who submitted a statement saying i know about third world countries this woman is originally from peru and you know natal tetanus is an issue there therefore she must have received several vaccines and the judge a court of federal claims that means that a finding  fact finding standard review i mean usually it's clear or substantial evidence or arbitrary capricious is usually reserved for discretionary michael looking back he says there's an error there's a legal standard there's a legal mistake yes he says they shifted the burden that is what he says we do not agree with it we do not believe that there was a burden shift we believe that petitioner never met even though we don't believe it's a political we believe that petitioner never met the kind of fashion case there was no burden shifting that occurred well what is disputed is whether or not the judge properly found or the special master properly found that asset of her condition was occurred within a medically appropriate timeframe he found another note there's no doubt about evidence that was presented unlike bacteria which divide every thirty minutes lymphocytes take up to a day or two to divide and they have to keep dividing so that there is enough of them to traverse the immune system it precisely but he did say it could be a little shorter or it could be a little longer it depends on a variety of factors but it would never be as short as eleven hours and there was no evidence not even anecdotal evidence from petitioner that it is ever happened a central nervous system to mile an even disease within eleven hours so there was no preponderance of evidence provided they tried to analogize by showing that diseases of the per nervous system might have might what were the prime frames short of time for him and the shortest time frame was let me tell you it's hard to say because some of the things that they point out were not the doctor sriram certainly did say that it takes the government's expert ten to fourteen days for this type of condition to develop and on that basis the specialist or decided that the  her isn't that entirely here as far as it goes the problem is that's not really what the special master for the special hastert said as much but what if you actually look at the decision the reason for that farmed was the evidence of the governor the evidence of the government showing by necessary logical extension of what dr truman government's expert said there must have been another cause the determination isn't one that should be made by the judicial officer in this case the special master who takes all of that evidence and makes the assessment it should only be that's what you're saying but the question is is that really what happened or is that not really what happened that's really what happened and here's why if you live with the reliance on the responders the government's expert i don't know  want to eliminate evidence offered by one side that tends to negate the force of the evidence offered by the plaintiff that happens to be in almost every trial because almost always the defendant puts in some contrary evidence intended to undermine the strength of the evidence put in by the plea that there's nothing wrong with that that has nothing to do with shifting burdens or requiring proof of of other other possible causes all it all it was all that all of the masses seem to do is to say well i think her evidence was pretty weak she didn't have any cases of eleven hours the shortest time things she had weren't this disease but a different kind of disease pretty weak and even as weak as it was it was further weakened fly the contrary evidence from the government sector i don't see there is any problem with that at all that's what a fact finders do in every case  aphasia case your case right may include proof that there was no alternative cost yes when one of the three often elements is missing correct that's exactly what the does the happened in this case the special master found one of the three elements was missing the onset and then went on to say under walther in password could maybe overcome that failure to meet one of the three elements if you could show there was no alternative cause but that's not there either and that's just exactly what your brief tells us right and so i'm still the basic point is there's no finding there's no onset medically appropriate onset evidence and everything flows from that the if if you accept the government well of course well judge lefkow told him he couldn't consider that evidence on remand the point is when the special master made the decision based on all of the evidence we found there was a failure proof and i'm struggling to found find what how the court of federal claims could have considered that ar the governments turkey based his opinion originally on clear sloppy errors in reading the medical record committed themselves to a position and carried it through as the government that actually attorney i'm sorry government vaccination as having it for the same day as the vaccination that he went on to misread some findings about liver function inflammation which if you had read the record carefully he first would have found that he was required elements of the cause of action the fact finders always permitted to consider the other side's evidence to the extent that it weakens the evidence put in by the plaintiffs who has the burden of proof so it's just flat wrong that's that's what he's done and again it's you can only get there i'm sorry to repeat myself by by collapsing the two birds in the lawn and that's that's where i don't falling  necessarily in effect what that means is that you're requiring the petitioner to show that there is no alternative because you know that it's not and that you're not requiring the petitioner to do any such thing you're requiring to petition or to show strong enough evidence that eleven hours isn't too soon he put in some evidence it wasn't very strong the master said it wasn't strong enough and it was undermined  government's expert i don't see any collapsing i don't see any catamount of anything anything else i think a way to judge whether yes there is by saying if you consider the government's expert testimony in this case you necessarily requiring the plaintiffs to show that there is no whether or not true not true that would only be true if the government's evidence was only relevant to proving a specific alternative causation but that same evidence that the government might depend on if it needed to for showing a specific alternative causation may also and in this case did undermine the plaintiff's evidence that eleven hours is not too sure ice but i think the key to what you just said a specific alternative cause the government's experts analysis require showing no alternative cause or put it another way the government's expert was saying there was some alternative costello we can't say what it is but that is the finding which is not permitted under half of the water all right or i think we i think we'd have has been met it would be an untenable position if we were not allowed to provide such evidence because we are lies under the statute to make help make a full record for the special master to consider we believe that the evidence that was provided by government the government's expert as wells literature he submitted just help to helps the special master to determine whether or not the plan the flashing case had been met the other issue i'd like to address is there were some allusion that there was a rebuttal case that occurred and the government provided rebuttal evidence in the rebuttal case we do not believe that was there that actually happened here providing evidence again it does not mean that the burden has shifted to the government to disprove or to prove that the vaccine was not the cause and that some other cause was in fact it is petitioners burden to prove their kind of fashion case we do not believe that they did we were plastered that the court of federal