protection board involving an employee removal we have or i get cases this happens heavy with one of the jury patent case from a jury this case was tried by a special master heard expert testimony from the minute and from the government and decided that the testimony of the  and when he just simply makes mistakes this court not only has a right to review it has the obligation to review and in this case what our position is that there are gross mistakes across the board and we can go right to the respondents expert to explain were some signs of developmental delay before hand he never explained how those symptoms had anything to do with spastically and he admitted that after the flu shot up until the time she saw for the physical therapist that  the aggravation claim basically came from the testimony of respondents experts not from the petitioners expert who pushed petitions experts said there was a discernible difference between anything that happened before the shot and what happened after the shot before the shot had  our position has always been that there are two separate situations there was develop of the way and there was fast asleep if indeed the expression all master and the experts on the other side deem that development of value to be the beginning of this there was clearly decreased muscle tone and in a large family precisely the same thing she saw in october and in october she said she would she was going to refer the child on the next visit which she did no change twenty three days later the flu shot she does not see this condition so it came up like an express train after now why is that relevant first of all the trial isn't reputed to have stopped feeding properly and started to cry all the sign after the first the laboratory report it showed that she had an order on me a reaction in for central nervous system they never looked at it he said that the flu shot probably probably caused a an autoimmune reaction which injured her brain and that is consistent with the message response that we was clearly seeing between the mild reaction the severe reaction and also the lab reports from the mayo clinic which indicated that the only thing they could find wrong with this trial after from the respondent is all one sided she hadn't quick reaction after the first flu shot to the to the time of the mayo clinic in the to that children's hospital sorry for the first time she had a spectacular reaction after the second shot her she experience any kind of neurological developmental delays so that necessarily the case that was presented below could not have been a significant aggravation case because their argument through dr leslie was that jade was fine until she received church to have those flu vaccinations out to over and over of two thousand for the critical issue in this case really was when did the first sometimes of changes almost arise the petitioners again through dr leslie said it was only after the flu vaccine there's nothing in the pediatric records to suggest that there was really any reaction following the first half dose of the flu vaccine and then if you look at the records following the second half dose of the flu vaccine i disagree that there is this considering the grief and possibilities very fine so it was now i think that is that it can definitely be drawn from his decision that even though he didn't conduct a significant aggravation analysis because that was not argued before the court he is that the physician has to provide some series showing that the vaccine was the cause of the significant aggravation of the condition so even if there was some showing of an aggravation or an exacerbation of the symptoms the special also found that dr leslie didn't provide a reliable theory sufficient under often to show causation so even if you know even if the court were to find that the special master should have conducted a second significant aggravation experienced fastest city after the vaccines and that that was somehow different than muscle tone and now they're making this argument that muscle tone is a muscle disease and faster c and totally unrelated to any neurological condition and i would just point out that in dr alaskans report which loss of muscle tone can be a neurological issues so that their own expert testimony is not supporting the argument that they're now making on this appeal of asbestos city this again this case really came down to  disagreement between the experts and i was squarely within the special masters discretion to look at the two experts to determine which expert opinions he felt were more supported by the evidence and were more rational or more logically stated that's case the fact is that you cannot confirm that without doing a dangerous procedure that doctors are not going to do in a case where they don't think they can do any good so they can do no harm a starter olasky said we're comparing this  disagree then the court is bound to take the plainest of petitioner's experts were in light of the other expert can show why it didn't happen rather than just disagree here we have a situation where the experts just disagreed across increase in damage to this child occurred while she was getting the flu shots and not not before and not after and far from what counsel says and she looked good in november and december the  children's hospital diagnosis was december night by december night she was fully spastic this was something that wasn't no and in twenty three days before dr pirro didn't see it so what happened rather than just his opinion it's the position should win so our position here is the special master made a mistake in that he read that the september the nov seventeenth referral to beat for neurology rather than p t so you could say that if indeed she saw a neurological problem on a november sixteenth maybe that would that was softened a little bit the petitioner's case but she didn't see that she referred for physical therapy