may please the court this is a case that offer the opportunity for the court to provide guidance in the vaccine litigation arena particularly guidance with respect to when petitioner lemonades other causes of their known causes for his illness whether that in itself helps satisfy their primary a primary facie case claim in this case that he suffered anything else at that time there is no claim of going to overturn of our potential cause the second area where this court can help  nastier basically said they cannot tell whether or not at the way the special master looked at it rested on this very narrow question of whether there was a sufficient timing between the vaccine and i think just the transverse myelitis and it's known as a matter of i don't understand that i don't have makes no sense to me because here the diagnosis is an important part of the determination of causation and whether the the mr contr that it's improper to insist on a single guard gnosis of only one thing that may be true but it's certainly important here is it not to determine whether g b s was part of the diagnosis the toes are pointed downward and when that happens that means us t b s and dr lake or first believed it was g b s and since they both can be treated together it didn't make a difference later on that there was an trying to figure out what you think the legal area here is and isolating that you know if it that the team maybe detected an earlier stage of the fact that it didn't occur with him one day doesn't mean that the vaccine claims affirm the special master physician here which is that he relied on the fact that it was a team and that team could occur without one day that absent the rest of the context of this case seems to occur one day and there was a great amount of literature that shows that could occur one day and there were good scientific discussions on how or could occur and one day announced to meet the a expected to be asked and since that was his first diagnosis send a diagnosis for the first forty eight hours or so and what he was treated for and since we have undisputed record here arbitrary credibility issue that that's brought up as far as this treating physicians and that is very important for this court to look at i believe the due process issue which occurred here also court testimony and other cases can't be broadly and it won't bargain that trial it was only two and a half years later that the special master apparently tried to look at transcripts or looked at important issue finally i think that the special master ignore a substantial circumstantial evidence case reproach which he should've given so i hope in the questioning today we get to some of that is it not the case that there are was put aside dr slanty that there was overwhelming evidence that special master drew the end friends and that as is and as the fact finder that's his role he was presented with conflicting evidence in this case about what we diagnose yes but he relied at least in part on flap his testimony which the court federal claims drew out altogether well if you look at that the transcript dr wagner who was the emergency room physician who treated petitioner he testified that he did perform this but penske reflex test and that that seemed to be evidence of g b s but that he also testified that petitioner was also experiencing the symptom of privatise him and that that suggested to have spinal cord involvement he also testified that even though there was an m r i that was performed on the day following the was not suffering from g b s while he was criticised did he make such a finding i believe he found that the that consistent with his first opinion that the sole diagnosis that that the the weight of the evidence in this case where been rather than taking the time to find that i think the the the the answer to your question is that the i believe where the question is going is that the idea that g b s can occur within twenty four hours after vaccination and within one day i mean do you it seems that the record suggests that g p s might occur within one day whereas it seems possible that improperly does it well that wasn't the case the petitioner presented below th he suffered from g b s the blood brain barrier problem which argues against it happening within one day isn't applicable right isn't applicable if it is only g d s but here we're not talking about worry that if they've made both arguments and they were wrong about one they necessarily lose on the other one i don't understand the logic of that because and as a special master pointed out of his decision if if the theory here is that the vaccine respectfully no you're out of this but the petitioner would have to offer a theory that would explain how a hepatitis vaccine administered domestic contrasts caused only g b s twenty four hours hollering administration but was not until an unrelated to the concurrent and the record did not support a diagnosis of g b s that once the m r i was done on these follow doctors there isn't a we just we just went through this with you there isn't any testimony that he was not your argument seems to be because his theory says this vaccine caused oh he can only win if you presuppose i think what we're arguing is that is the petitioners burden to present a medical theory and a our what if he said i have either g b s or t m that was caused by the vaccine and then the special master would have needed to evaluate that case you seem to be splitting hairs and because that seems to suggest that that's exactly the record and to make a determination that he suffered from one but not the other but the problem you get into there and i don't want to go over this again is that the only evidence that he didn't suffer from t v s is to discredit its lack of respect for your  looking at the actual doctors who are treating mr contrast during his illness the doctors who are most concerned with what he had because they were responsible for history of an inhaler twenty years to a finding by the special master that it wasn't suffering from g b s i asked you can't point to such a fun do that and his very first decision he says in the most recent decision the first decision is tainted by his reliance on doctor slappy for the most recent decision where he makes theories on behalf of petitioner that were not offered into evidence by petitioners own expert and that the special master has to evaluate the record before him he asked evaluate the evidence before him which you know over he's written over one hundred  seventy pages single spaced on this case and i don't think there can be any argument that he's not carefully considered the evidence in this case and he simply wasn't he found the most persuasive the testimony of the government claim is judge found on the final opinion that he almost completely disregarded her instruction to agree man about looking at slot making specific findings in the light and only at the end gave up and affirm based on this very narrow question because that there really and opinion still went through and so why even those like he may have been discredited for some reasons he wasn't discredited for others almost in direct contravention of what the court of federal claims that said the time before i mean that the run of th question of this opinion that you're arguing for affirmative on the very very small portion of the third opinion and all it talks about is t m not the cause have axion within one day and i see them over my time if i may briefly respond you should respond i've got i think a sick it is significant that judge bush for all the problems that she had with the way the special master handled this case at the end of the day could find no error and his evaluation i don't think that this record where we have that we've decided that we have the authority in cases coming from the district court to order cases on review and to be heard by another district court judge there's an established standard for that is there any reason that we can't apply that same established standard to ordering that the case be heard by a different special master your honor i'm frankly not familiar with that standard i but i would argue that absent some showing of misconduct by the special master in this case  treating mr patris for g b s an answer to the question that you raise which is a very interesting one candace court order that the case be transferred to another special master because that taint of and i think that that for a fact is what should happen in this case i think that would be perfectly appropriate and finally dr garrett who did they all say it was transfer of elias said that is differential diagnosis with g p s so this is now one of those cases where falls into it's either one disease or the other these two diseases are very much coexist in twenty seven