you for this opportunity the critical question and they've been no claim for compensation under the vaccine that was whether the m r i scans done of his brain and november of two thousand they are reasonable your decisions in pollok were secretary of health and human services and moriarty versus secretary of health and human services which i submitted as a subtle that all authority on april fifteen acknowledging the existence of an expert report or other piece of evidence is not the same thing as considering in moriarty the special master of knowledge the expert witness report and medical that is to think carefully in order from about a lay subject to think carefully in order for make a choice or decision i believe consider in the context of this case either chose not to consider dr balance reports for those reasons or he chose to afford it the way for those reasons i don't think whether you consider whether you we've used the word right and then there's two other doctors you will and about who the special master didn't see testify this special master didn't get to know what their qualifications and experience are and then the diagnoses that the special master had record from those two doctors was was very brief some might say concise others might just say conclusively but in any event it appeared the special master that the real main event of trying to understand what is the best interpretation of these m r i was based on all of the evidence and testimony he was getting and so when it came to trying to figure out how to fold then you'll end thousand he treated them kind of on the same level which is i'm going to give i'm not going to give e the they don't really yak they're part of the record they're going to be considered somewhere in the end they don't push too far forward as a collective matter especially when the special master clearly wasn't considering d multiple them cuts through the the that part of the run multiple and dr witnesses hold the steps to the hyper to the hyper intensities in the hippocampus you're correct he did that he did have conflicting viewpoints he has two doctors saying that the m r eyes were normal and he had two doctors saying that there were abnormalities and it was the special master's job to determine which of those interpretations was more persuasive the way that he looked at dr bows as reported it was in the context of examining dr schumann's testimony because the first two abnormalities that dr freeman testified about were actually the same two abnormalities that dr val's identified in his report and if you look at the special masters decision in this is pages sixteen through twenty feet of the appendix the special master spends all of those viles was talking about in his report so the special master actually analyze what dr schumann was saying about these abnormalities with dr wiznitzer responded about these abnormalities and then found that dr wiznitzer was more to be more persuasive so the idea that somehow the special master has not carefully considered dr valises report is just an accurate based on the record especially masters decision does address the substance of what was and dr  but the special master did also have other very reasonable reasons for as judge cheney said not giving either dr shu or dr bell's opinion much weight and that is that the reports themselves from from these from these basically illustrated the other mollies and that was what dr schumann and dr wiznitzer dead at the here and they spent a significant amount of time going through specific images from that as our eyes and showing pointing out what they thought was abnormal persuasive because he was able to substantiate what he was saying by providing examples from the medical literature that supported what he was saying testified at the hearing that he first reviewed nathan's two thousand and five m r i sometime in the summer of two thousand and eleven and after reviewing the m r i he decided if you want to nathan to undergo a second m r i and he said to quote test the correctness of his observations and inferences dr schumann then sent a letter to nathan's pediatrician and las vegas at the time dr winkler and this letter stated that while the radiologist seventh the two thousand and eleven nathan had his initial consultation with the pediatric neurologist in georgia named dr fisher and dr schumann is listed as one of the referring physicians on the record and the record also states that an a note from dr schumann the doctor she will testify that he believes what happened was dr winkler in las vegas for that a copy of his letter to dr fisher and that's what she had in her possession when she first saw nathan nathan then had his second m r i done on october twenty the medical records do any of nathan stream physicians diagnose him with an encephalitis the only source of the statement could have been the note from dr schumann whether that was provided to dr ballard directly or whether it was communicated to him and directly provided to him that nathan had experience in satellite as and dr schumann is the only person who had provided that opinion at that point so it was reasonable for the specialist you conclude that this m r i was not done for purposes of so there really is no difference between the documentary evidence provided by dr pao staff and the documentary evidence of the transcript too it's not unreasonable to suggest the highly qualified physician that doesn't mean just opinion shouldn't have been considered or that it should have been given so little wet it's unreasonable for the special master to simply with it whatever you  to not use an opinion in the medical records of a child first had similar supportive opinions that addressed the specific issues addressed by the expert witnesses and going over the same territory in other words if you read only the