substituted on findings it never engage in that inquiry in this case and we do think that if you did look at the court of federal claims of opinion we think it fails for many of the same reasons that the special masters decision was an were plausible inferences drawn from and rational reasons articulated and in this case i think on the face of the special masters decision that's exactly that's exactly what happened and therefore the decision is not arbitrary what were the special master's find in particular on the issue causation two or there were two main killers of the special masters arguments the first was that according to the relevant record evidence and the expert witness testimony d develop normally for the seven months following the vaccine which the special master found quote strongly suggested that the vaccine did not cause injury in other words there was no logical sequence or of cause and effect and second the special master found that the two principal experts that petitioner offered dr shane and dr max and were not persuasive or credible experts especially as compared to the experts that the government  offered and those are those are the two main reasons and we can go through starting back with number one the number one strikes me as the because question because there once evidence in the record of early development but why but i guess what you're saying is that you don't need to prevail on both of these you might need to prevail on one of them i think that's true but i was i would also add your honor i think you can find it on on either one i think that's true and then there's also a second course in the special masters decision which was the album prong three about trying and there the special master said number one  but i think in a david i think you can rely entirely on problems to which was the one that was the principal parchin of the special master's decisions well i guess what i'm wondering about is the one on the second argument you're making about the expert testimony is it really necessary to have an expert testimony on the causation or can a special master draw conclusions about causation from other factors for example a fact that in other things here apart from the expert testimony that could be viewed as bearing on causation is it the government's position that you have to have expert testimony on credible expert testimony on causation when i think the i think that certainly gender or what doesn't and i would hesitate to say give a uniform rule of as to what type of evidence you have to offer in every case but i but i will say that here we have the medical experts which was found not persuasive by th special master and i think that i don't think that what you can do is simply point to other people who have established their case with the same vaccine every member this is an off label case you have to prove actual causation and it's not normally  factor of which would support in part of finding the cause a gin and that there are other factors here which might have been relied on to lead to a finding of causation i mean if if for example a special master were to say in one of these cases well i can't find causation because there's no expert no credible expert testimony of supporting a finding of causation how would that be reversible error for the testimony i think that's a much closer question of course that's not what we have in this case and i think you would i hesitate to answer because i think it would depend on the totality of the evidence and i think that a special master should take in all the evidence and not just simply look at experts if they offered abberton that's all they offered and they were found not credible i think you would lose your case because the only evidence you had was found not persuasive if you had other evidence perhaps finding your experts not credible credible the other evidence might be sufficient in a particular case in this case there were it's not only the special master found the doctor's necks and chain were not persuasive but that the government's witnesses the doctor with sr in particular was credible in saying that there was not a developmental delay and in fact dr to row the treating physician said that he did not think that there were better master who concluded that because there was no developmental delay during those seven months that strongly suggested no causation and in this case we have three examinations by treating pediatrician the seven months after the vaccine was administered and in each of those the treating physician noted the baby was a well baby with normal neurological development in each of the three instances and we have  wiznitzer saying there was no developmental delay during this time we have doctor to row the treating physician saying i don't see mid mid milestones here i see normal development and he specifically said i do not see even at nine months two standard deviations off the mean which petitioners brief said is the test for whether there's developmental the lack for doctor to row dr richards or all supported the special masters decision that there was a finding that there was no developmental delay during the speech this period i think that's an ample and sound basis for the special masters factual for finding it was based in the record it was a plausible inference and he even conceded he said you know this isn't a one sided case that seems to be mixing up the two things that you separate earlier one is the developmental one a issue to me is a closer issue than the second one about the lack  of credible expert testimony and i'm just i'm wondering to what extent does the special masters are decision the lines solely on the lack of credible expert testimony putting to one side the development of the late show well i think in looking in the context of this particular case if petitioner hands basically put forward expert testimony and then there's a record  sees these well baby visits the well baby didn't certainly don't say anything on their face that shows developmental delay and if the experts don't add anything to that there's simply an absence of evidence so if you if you see if you agree that the experts were not credible or persuasive there's really not much left in the case for the un and that's what i'm not sure about because you you you've got this fact that in these other cases there was a relationship that was found you have the fact that you know there's no other causes of cause that's been identified for this you know that there was  this case in which the all the evidence is on one side but what it did it found the government's case more persuasive or at least a petitioner had met the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence actual causation and in a case where there is competing evidence on both sides it is precisely the province of the special master to make those determinations now on the special master have ruled against us we would face an uphill battle on appeal also to try to overcome that but the same is true on the other side for the petitioner who must overcome that high hurdle of arbitrary and capricious review and i think if you think that the evidence is sort of mixed and there's evidence on both sides it's really up to th family there is a lot of evidence in the medical records supporting the fact that this child who had a conceded adverse reaction to the vaccination on july twentieth two thousand and nine thirty nine and a conce obviously diagnosed for the first time in march there were signs all along through the period between those two events indicating quite clearly that this child was not progressing normal never said and that clearly he did say that it was a likely cause a possible cause and he could find no other quote now we have to realize that this child was looked back like everybody he was and so there was doctor in the new york area that this child probably didn't see nobody could identify any other cause so when you have a situation where a child has them thoroughly examined we have one of them and we have the july twentieth vaccination injury and it shows up in march and if the child was only two months old when the injury happened you're not going to see this stuff except when he fails to hit to make a smile we have for instance we have the september  september review where the child was found to be well baby every expert even the government's expert said you couldn't credit that one because there's no way that a child that age could be sitting and back since he was seven so that one is loving el that's where the argument is the sequel have to show up in six months the symptoms of the injury have to show up within six months that's that's in the table and of course the other thing the judge greatly depends upon here is a pertussis injury of this type is in the manifestation of the reaction to the vaccine medium range so that's within six months a man i don't think was factory but means that every manifestation of injury has to occur with the person's mind not everything but in considering that question what's the relevance in the context of this case for the developmental delay three months six months or my route if in fact there was no testimony about when you would expect it to be manifest if it was the court was forced by the back the reason it's important in this case is because the government's position is there has to be a logical sequence of cause and effect there has to be a connection between the incident in july and the diagnosis and and in march and they're saying that say that there has to be some sign of that within a six month period and we're saying there was that was funny and he didn't dispute that there has to be a some questions whether or not it was have certainly there has to be some way to connect a to b if it's far enough apart you can't really say one is the other but if indeed you can show a string of events that connect one to the other then if you basically that's a logical cause of closed effect that we agree to cover when we do it we can't be that if if there's a particular kind of injury that's normally manifested nine months after the vaccine and the vaccine is given and there lo and behold nine months later the injury is manifested we're going off the pace i mean you know you can recover right it doesn't it doesn't have to be something within six months you have to be able to connect it somehow or other right i mean the six months isn't ma concerned about the disease and which the the that metal blade was manifest if nobody testified one way or the other as to when you would normally expect this to be manifest yes well i mean  show the connection between one of them and the other now i and there are now the reasons that judge brady can go back and look at this is because there's been a major legal error in the special master did not ok the child was diagnosed with a static conceptualizes in march in late march of two thousand and seven times after that these events which the special master says could be normal development even though they were always very low norm occurred before that and he deemed them to be normal development saying he was and so the child was developing normally for seven months j p was not developing normally by side for seven months these medical reports that were interpreted not just by the medical experts and let me point out that dr shane is not a medical expert on child development he was there as a as a half hour just make up with regard to the government's claim that this was a carry one mel formation that with was sit up in but the big issue is dr who are up in january determined by reviewing the report that was done in january by his office that j p was at that time he was he was a nine month old child and he was performing had between six and seven months so he was already between twenty five percent behind and it and thirty percent behind and every analysis of j p after the diagnosis through the next year found him to be almost exactly that far behind so the static and sample offices was apparent and that is the extent of it was apparent in january now the special master and the government is trying to certify those leads to the conclusion that the encephalopathy started between january and march first of all there is no event at all in the medical records or any testimony from parents for anybody anything that happened between january and march and the extent of his his disability was the same in january as it was later in the year so it was fully established that the simple office he was present in january and symptoms lazy eye which is a more normal and by nine condition and he referred him to an ophthalmologist full so didn't see it but also concluded it must be the lazy eye on one condition nobody likes to see a fire when they think th could be something less nobody sought until march and when it was seen it was diagnosed as as in stag most sign up his neurological problems the special master led to the conclusion that the lazy eye there is it had to be present a fall because after his diagnosis is stagnant after march it is never diagnosed as lazy eye again it is always a neurological problem after that and it's still there so as of as of the date of the hearing the test when the father was the same thing seen not understood later on as a diagnosis and they understand that that was the first symptoms office books to dismiss the cases tried to break and so it was good to dismiss a case it's good to sustain one and here we have a train of events between months if there's no testimony by anyone that particular period of time is significant in terms of causation i think that there is very little significance to it in this case and i was going to address that is my first point which is as the special answer noted it's a petition your has to show the timeframe in which medical science would expect the injury to the man that they're for the special master found that the petition submitted no evidence and no testimony at this point and my colleague just conceded that he introduced no evidence in this point i think that makes their case fail on prime three and that sort of probably the easiest way for this case to be resolved but the punt twenty to one side for a moment clause three how does the the timing of the developmental delay bear on causation if neither side put the testimony suggesting well normally you'd see it in two months and you didn't see or normally see in six months and you didn't see it it seems to me both sides just sort of ignored the significant kept arguing about the developmental delay and when it was manifested without putting any testimony as to the relevance of the of the time period it was it's obviously i think it's not our burden to establish that that's the burden on the petitioners at this i think this court has said but i think our point was to show that what we think the attack that was made by a petition or the claim that they were based on was pointing at these well baby visits and suppose miss milesto in the foundation for that in other words that it was significant that that was that much of a gap between the vaccine development mobilising wasn't a stamp or so i mean did the special master make operating presumptions when you're trying to figure out the cause and effect of anything let alone of vaccine injury is that temporal proximity is something that you consider now in the absence of saying well you wouldn't expect it the to ensue immediately after you'd expect a significant delay i think normally people presumed that you would see some close proximity and the special master here was saying you don't see any the petitioner wants to say that entirely what you would expect they have the burden of showing that which is why this court is established the the time here is a requirement as part of prong three but they haven't shown that in the absence of showing that you would normally presume that when you had a vaccine at one point and an injury later on absent some showing by the petitioner you would think that the large separation of time tends to disprove causation  and just to get to a couple of other points i think the special master here found dr to rowe's testimony to be rather unpersuasive the court of federal claim that think rather unreasonably found the opposite i'd just like to quote a portion of his testimony if you can think i think it's persuasive and i think it's as discordant said it's important to look at the treating physician which doctor to row was and he said and i'm quoting now would i be able to get up here and say oh this is clearly a reaction to the vaccine i'll be honest no i can't say that i can't say that it is or it isn't i just don't have any concrete evidence to connect that to what he said was at most it's possible and it's not even possible but this court i'm overly said plausible or papa or possible connections are not enough to meet the burden of proof and here you have the treating physician saying you know he's trying to be as generous as