Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01753/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01753-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 469
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TRYSTAN SANCHEZ, BY AND THROUGH HIS 

PARENTS, GERMAIN SANCHEZ, JENNIFER 

SANCHEZ,

Petitioners-Appellants

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-1753

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:11-vv-00685-PEC, Judge Patricia E. CampbellSmith.

______________________

Decided: April 7, 2020

______________________

LISA A. ROQUEMORE, Law Offices of Lisa A. Roquemore, 

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, argued for petitioners-appellants. 

 HEATHER LYNN PEARLMAN, Vaccine/Torts Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2020
2 SANCHEZ v. HHS

by JOSEPH H. HUNT, C. SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, CATHARINE 

E. REEVES, JENNIFER LEIGH REYNAUD. 

 ______________________

Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) reviewing the decision of 

a special master denying a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the 

Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. Sanchez v. Sec’y

of Health & Human Servs., 142 Fed. Cl. 247 (2019). The

parties, the special master, and the Claims Court judge 

have all put enormous time and thoughtful attention into 

this complex and difficult case. For that reason, it is with 

reluctance that we have come to the conclusion that it is 

necessary to burden the parties and the adjudicators with 

additional work. Nonetheless, because the record has left 

certain critical issues unresolved, we are required to vacate 

the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I

A

Trystan Sanchez received several vaccines in February 

2009 when he was six months old. Shortly after his vaccinations, he developed a fever and displayed what his parents characterized as “inconsolable crying.” Several days 

later, he again developed a fever and was congested. He 

was diagnosed at that time with a common cold.

In August 2009 Trystan received a second round of vaccinations. Trystan’s mother reported at that time that she 

had noticed a change in Trystan’s development. A neurologist who saw Trystan in November 2009 determined that 

he was exhibiting global developmental delays. Trystan 

continued to show developmental delays for the next several years.

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 3

In 2011, suspecting that the 2009 vaccinations had 

been responsible for Trystan’s developmental difficulties, 

the Sanchezes filed a petition for compensation under the 

Vaccine Act. While the petition was pending, Trystan underwent genetic testing. Based on two mutations in 

Trystan’s DNA discovered during that testing, Trystan was 

diagnosed with Leigh’s syndrome. Leigh’s syndrome is a 

rare but severe genetic disorder that typically manifests itself in the first year of life and causes progressive loss of 

mental and physical abilities, usually resulting in early 

death.

B

Prior to Trystan’s genetic testing and his Leigh’s syndrome diagnosis, the special master who was assigned to 

the case held a hearing to determine the facts relating to 

Trystan’s condition. Based on the evidence at the hearing 

and the parties’ joint statement of stipulated facts, the special master then entered a detailed Ruling Finding Facts

in April 2013. In several instances in his factual findings, 

the special master chose to credit the written medical reports’ descriptions of Trystan’s symptoms over the testimony of Trystan’s parents.

The special master found that Trystan appeared 

healthy and was developing normally before February 5, 

2009, when he received his first round of vaccines. Shortly

after his pediatric visit that day, however, Trystan began 

to cry inconsolably, he ran a temperature of 102.2, and he 

developed a lump on his left thigh that was hot to the touch. 

The fever ebbed and flowed over the next several days. 

On February 15, Trystan became congested and began 

running a fever again. The following night, his fever became worse, and he began what his mother described as 

“loud, high-pitched” crying. His father sought to calm 

Trystan by holding him, but when Trystan would fall 

asleep, he would repeatedly startle awake. According to 

his father, Trystan “kept kicking his feet and jerking 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2020
4 SANCHEZ v. HHS

around” in his father’s arms, “almost as if he didn’t want to 

be held.” His father testified that Trystan was “jerking his 

body” and “holding his arm behind his back kind of in an 

uncomfortable position.” Trystan’s father said that when 

he “went to put [Trystan’s] arm back to the normal position,” he could “feel that he had a lot of tension in that arm. 

And when I did put it back, his arm went right back holding 

it back towards the back of his body.” In his 2013 Ruling 

Finding Facts, the special master did not appear to credit 

Trystan’s father’s testimony regarding Trystan’s arm

movements. In that ruling, the special master said that 

“[a]t this time, Trystan did not begin to exhibit arm contortions.”

The following morning, Trystan’s mother took Trystan 

to the pediatrician’s office, where he was examined by Jonathan P. Luna, a certified physician’s assistant. Mr. Luna 

diagnosed Trystan with a “common cold” and “viral syndrome.” Ms. Sanchez testified that she told Mr. Luna about 

Trystan’s arm contortions, but Mr. Luna did not make a 

note of her observations in his record of the visit. In light 

of the absence of a report of the arm contortions in Mr. 

Luna’s record of the visit, the special master found that 

Trystan did not begin to exhibit arm contortions at that 

time. 

Trystan suffered from coughing and congestion episodically for the next couple of months. Ms. Sanchez testified 

that during that period, Trystan continued to have arm 

contortions, sometimes several times a day. In addition, 

she testified that Trystan “started to lose control of his 

head,” that his “trunk . . . was not as strong,” that he “didn’t 

have any eye contact,” and that he “didn’t want to play” 

anymore. Again, however, the special master did not credit 

Ms. Sanchez’s testimony because it was not corroborated 

by medical reports.

On April 29, 2009, after Trystan had suffered from a 

cough and congestion for two weeks, his mother took him 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 5

to a pediatrician, Dr. Nabil R. Seleem. She testified that 

she told Dr. Seleem about Trystan’s arm contortions. Dr. 

Seleem, however, did not note any such comments in his 

record of the visit, and his notes reflect his observation that 

Trystan appeared to be neurologically normal. Based on 

Dr. Seleem’s report, the special master found that Ms. 

Sanchez did not report any “unusual arm movements or 

developmental issues” to Dr. Seleem. Dr. Seleem diagnosed Trystan with an ear infection and bronchitis, for 

which he prescribed an antibiotic.

Trystan returned to the clinic on May 13, 2009, at 

which time the examining pediatrician, Dr. Philip S. 

Brown, noted that Trystan’s infection seemed to be resolving. Ms. Sanchez testified that she told Dr. Brown about 

“the weird movement, the contortion of the arm,” and the 

issue with Trystan’s head control. Dr. Brown’s report of

the visit did not include any reference to those neurological 

complaints, however, and the special master found that 

Trystan had not experienced any loss of skills at that point.

On August 17, 2009, Trystan was seen by physician’s

assistant Micaela Marin-Tucker for his one-year well-baby 

exam. Ms. Marin-Tucker’s notes reflect that Trystan’s 

mother said she had noticed a change in Trystan’s development about two to three months earlier. Ms. Sanchez testified that Ms. Marin-Tucker’s notes were wrong and that 

she told Ms. Marin-Tucker she had noticed a change in 

Trystan’s development that began five to six months earlier. The special master credited Ms. Marin-Tucker’s contemporary notes over Ms. Sanchez’s testimony and found 

that Trystan began to lose skills only as of about the beginning of May 2009 at the earliest.

In the course of her examination, Ms. Marin-Tucker 

found that Trystan did not walk, stand, crawl, and hold his 

head up while sitting. She also found that Trystan did not

attempt to move his lower extremities, and she noticed that 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 04/07/2020
6 SANCHEZ v. HHS

his extremities seemed generally soft, but rigid at times. 

Ms. Marin-Tucker referred Trystan to a neurologist.

During the August 2009 clinic visit, Trystan received 

another round of vaccinations. Following those vaccinations, Ms. Sanchez testified, Trystan “got sick again” and 

“started contorting his arm even more.”

Six weeks later, Trystan returned to the clinic for a follow-up visit. At that time, Ms. Marin-Tucker noted that 

Trystan had “no seizures, weakness, or tics.” In the report 

of her neurological examination, however, she stated that 

Trystan was “unable to grasp, sit, crawl, or make much eye 

contact.” She again urged the family to have Trystan examined by a neurologist. 

In November of that year, Trystan was seen by a neurologist. Prior to that visit, Trystan began having tremors 

or twitching of his whole body. The neurologist recorded 

reports that Trystan was unable to sit independently, his 

hands stayed closed, and his feet went forward when he 

was at rest. His examination was positive for muscle 

spasms, weakness, and global developmental delay, among 

other problems. Based on his examination and Trystan’s 

history, the neurologist concluded that Trystan was suffering from “global developmental delay of unclear etiology, 

though a genetic predisposition is suspected based on the 

family history and a [central nervous system] cause is suggested by the physical exam findings.” An MRI performed

in December 2009 revealed abnormalities in Trystan’s basal ganglia, and the treating physicians began to suspect a 

metabolic disorder.

During the ensuing five years, Trystan was examined 

on numerous occasions, without a firm diagnosis being 

reached. Genetic testing in December 2014, over a year after the special master’s initial factual findings, revealed 

that Trystan had two mutations in his SDHA gene. Based 

on those mutations, Trystan’s treating physician confirmed 

a diagnosis of Leigh’s syndrome.

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 6 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 7

C

Following Trystan’s diagnosis with Leigh’s syndrome, 

the petitioners’ theory changed. Rather than arguing that 

the vaccines directly caused his condition, they acknowledged that Trystan’s Leigh’s syndrome was the product of 

his genetic condition. They argued, however, that the first 

round of vaccinations Trystan received on February 5, 

2009, either caused his genetic condition to be expressed or 

significantly aggravated the course of his disease. They 

also argued that Trystan’s second set of vaccinations, on 

August 17, 2009, further aggravated the effects of his disease.

To address these issues, the special master held a second hearing in December 2017 at which experts for the parties testified. At that four-day hearing, two experts 

testified for the petitioners—Dr. Lawrence Steinman and 

Dr. Dmitriy Niyazov. Four experts testified for the government—Dr. Gerald Raymond, Dr. Stephen McGeady, Dr. 

Edward Cetaruk, and Dr. Dean Jones.

The petitioners’ experts testified that Trystan’s developmental regression began shortly after his first vaccinations on February 5, 2009. Dr. Niyazov testified that the 

symptoms Trystan experienced immediately after receiving those vaccines were evidence of an immune response. 

Because of Trystan’s genetic mutations, which resulted in 

decreased mitochondrial function, the vaccines started an 

inflammatory response affecting Trystan’s brain. That response, according to Dr. Niyazov, “triggered a gradual process of developmental regression” that became more 

evident around June 1, 2009.

Dr. Steinman similarly testified that the vaccines 

stressed the energy sources in Trystan’s cells. Because of 

Trystan’s mitochondrial disease, Dr. Steinman testified, 

Trystan was “on the edge all the time, and this vaccine trigger[ed] a downward cascade that began on February 5th

when he got the vaccine.” Dr. Steinman and Dr. Niyazov 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 7 Filed: 04/07/2020
8 SANCHEZ v. HHS

testified that Trystan’s inconsolable high-pitched crying 

and his jerking and arm contortions were evidence of neurodegenerative events, and were not consistent with a common cold.

Drs. Niyazov and Steinman also testified that Trystan 

suffered what is known as a “challenge-rechallenge.” That 

is, his regression and dystonia following his initial vaccinations was repeated following his August 2009 vaccinations, 

except that his condition worsened significantly after that 

time. Dr. Steinman referred to the aftermath of Trystan’s 

second set of vaccines as “an accelerated neurological degeneration due to a recall response.” Dr. Niyazov agreed 

that the second set of vaccinations set Trystan back again.

One of the government’s experts, Dr. McGeady, testified that while Trystan’s inconsolable crying on the day of 

his initial vaccinations “may very well have been” a response to the vaccines, the fever that he ran on February 

16, 2009, was caused by the viral respiratory infection he 

suffered at that time. The other principal government expert, Dr. Raymond, testified that in his opinion, the evidence did not show that Trystan had a seizure on February 

16. Instead, he testified that “[k]icking of the legs, resisting being held, is not, in my opinion, epileptic activity.”

Following the December 2017 hearing, the special mater entered his Published Decision Denying Compensation. 

In that detailed order, he reviewed his earlier factual findings and then turned to deciding the issue of compensation 

in light of the expert evidence adduced at the second hearing.

At the outset, the special master addressed the first of 

the three factors to be considered in assessing a vaccine 

compensation claim under this court’s decision in Althen v. 

Secretary of Health & Human Services, 418 F.3d 1274, 

1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005): whether the petitioners have shown 

“a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and 

the injury.” In this case, that factor required the special 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 8 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 9

master to determine whether the petitioners had shown 

that the vaccines Trystan received could have caused the 

manifestation or aggravation of his Leigh’s syndrome.

After reviewing the expert testimony and the medical 

literature, the special master concluded that “though a link 

between vaccination and the onset of Leigh’s syndrome has 

not been established to the standard of medical certainty,”

the evidence presented was “sufficient to conclude that the 

Sanchezes’ theory is plausible insofar as it is consistent 

with contemporary understanding of the biological systems 

at play.” The special master explained that the “first manifestation of Leigh’s syndrome is known to follow an intercurrent illness in many, if not most, cases.” In particular, 

the special master concluded that the Sanchezes had presented “a plausible medical theory explaining how 

Trystan’s vaccines may have caused his injury” by showing 

that it was more plausible than not that the vaccine that 

Trystan received “is known to sometimes cause fever,” and 

that “fever can cause decompensation in someone with a 

pre-existing mitochondrial disease.”1 In light of the evidence before him, the special master concluded that the 

government had not rebutted either of those theories, and 

“that both premises are likely to be consistent with contemporary medical thought.”

The special master then turned to the question 

whether the vaccine had in fact triggered or aggravated 

Trystan’s Leigh’s syndrome, for which his genetic mutations predisposed him. The special master noted that the 

petitioners and their experts argued that Trystan’s neurological deterioration began on February 5, 2009, the day he 

received his vaccinations. The special master concluded, 

however, that the evidentiary record “does not support this 

1 As the special master explained, “decompensation” is 

a period of regression or loss of skills frequently seen in 

children with Leigh’s syndrome.

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 9 Filed: 04/07/2020
10 SANCHEZ v. HHS

premise that is so central to the Sanchezes’ argument.” Instead, the special master found that “approximately three 

months passed between when Trystan received the February 5, 2009 vaccinations and the earliest possible onset of 

his neurological regression.” Based on that finding, the 

special master asked whether a delay of that magnitude “is 

consistent with vaccine-causation.” In light of the medical 

literature in evidence, he concluded that it was not. Instead, summarizing the literature, the special master concluded that regression would generally be expected to occur 

in such patients within about two weeks or less after the 

triggering event, such as a fever or infection.

The special master made a series of factual findings 

bearing on the issue. In particular, he found that in the 

hours after the February 5 vaccination, Trystan developed 

a fever and displayed inconsolable crying. The fever ebbed 

and flowed for a few days.

The special master found that the vaccines Trystan 

was given on February 5 caused him to develop a fever. He 

also found that fever, including fever following vaccination, 

can cause decompensation in a patient with a metabolic 

disease such as Trystan’s.

On February 15, Trystan developed another fever and 

was crying inconsolably again. He “was congested and had 

difficulty breathing.” In addition, the special master found, 

Trystan’s “arms contorted and he was jerking around.” 

However, the special master found that those movements 

“were of the type typically displayed by an infant suffering 

from a cold.” The special master also found that Trystan’s 

family did not convey to physician’s assistant Luna, who 

examined Trystan the following day, that Trystan had displayed any symptoms consistent with a neurological injury 

as opposed to a cold, and Mr. Luna did not detect any signs 

in the course of his examination that were consistent with 

a neurological injury as opposed to a cold.

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 10 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 11

The special master also found that Trystan’s parents 

took him to see Dr. Seleem on April 29, 2009, because of 

concern about his cough and congestion that had lasted for 

two weeks, and that they did not convey to Dr. Seleem that 

Trystan had displayed any symptoms consistent with a 

neurological injury. The special master further found that 

Dr. Seleem did not observe any signs that were indicative 

of neurological injury during the examination he performed 

on Trystan.

Finally, the special master credited the report prepared by physician’s assistant Marin-Tucker, who stated 

that Trystan’s mother had said during the August 17, 2009, 

visit that Trystan first started showing signs of loss of 

skills approximately two to three months earlier. Based on 

that evidence, the special master concluded that the first 

signs of Trystan’s loss of skills occurred by the beginning of 

May 2009 at the earliest.

The special master then addressed the question 

whether the delay between the date of the vaccinations and 

when Trystan’s parents noticed his loss of skills was attributable to the fact that in a child as young as Trystan,

the loss of skills may not be immediately obvious. Based 

on the literature, the special master found that “there is 

some truth to that claim.” In addition, the special master 

deemed that there is “a non-insignificant chance that the 

Sanchezes relayed a concern [about Trystan’s development] at the May 13, 2009, visit with Dr. Brown that did 

not end up in the records.” Nonetheless, the special master 

concluded, that possibility did not account for the threemonth period during which the medical records “show[ed]

no indication of Trystan having, or the parents being concerned about, a neurological condition.” Instead, the special master found, the parents “appeared to be focused on 

Trystan’s multiple colds.”

The special master acknowledged that “if Trystan did 

not experience any other decompensating events between 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 11 Filed: 04/07/2020
12 SANCHEZ v. HHS

the vaccination and the onset of his Leigh’s syndrome, it 

may very well make his parents’ claims of causation less 

improbable.” However, the special master pointed out that 

during the three months “leading up to when his loss of 

skills first manifested, Trystan suffered from multiple upper respiratory infections.” Such infections, the special 

master noted, “are known to precipitate mitochondrial decompensation.” Trystan’s upper respiratory infections between March and May of 2009, the special master 

concluded, “are entirely consistent with the infections being the intercurrent infection that induced his metabolic 

decompensation . . . .”

The special master further stated that the petitioners’ 

failure to address “a conspicuous and probable alternate 

cause for the manifestation of Trystan’s Leigh’s syndrome 

weighs against a finding that the vaccination caused 

Trystan’s injury.” He determined that the presence of a 

probable alternative cause, “in combination with the unlikelihood of a multiple-month delay between the vaccine 

and the onset of his neurodegeneration, makes a finding 

that the vaccine was, more likely than not, a substantial 

factor in Trystan’s Leigh’s syndrome untenable.” The special master therefore denied the petition for compensation.

D

The petitioners filed a motion for review of the special 

master’s decision with the Claims Court. After conducting 

a detailed review of the evidence and the special master’s 

findings, the court upheld the special master’s decision 

denying compensation. 

The Claims Court rejected petitioners’ contention that 

the special master had erred in finding that Trystan’s vaccine-related injury occurred within an acceptable time 

frame. The court declined the petitioners’ “invitation to reweigh the evidence as to disease onset,” because nothing in 

the allegations of fact or the expert opinions relied on by 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 12 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 13

the petitioners showed that the special master’s findings as 

to disease onset were arbitrary or capricious.

The Claims Court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that the special master had ignored their “challengerechallenge” argument based on the combined effect of the 

February and August 2009 vaccinations. The court found 

that the special master had “weighed the relevant evidence 

of rechallenge symptoms” but “found the evidence to be unpersuasive.” For that reason, the court concluded, “it was 

not error for the special master to also find petitioners’ expert testimony as to rechallenge to be so unpersuasive as 

to be unworthy of mention . . . .”

II

On appeal, the petitioners challenge the special master’s decision (and the Claims Court’s affirmance of that 

decision) on three principal grounds. First, the petitioners 

contend that the rulings of the special master and the 

Claims Court are contrary to the 2015 decision of this court 

in Paluck v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 786 

F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Second, they argue that the 

central component of the special master’s ruling—that 

Trystan’s Leigh’s syndrome was not triggered by his February 5, 2009, vaccinations—is contrary to the evidence. 

Third, they argue that the special master failed to address 

their “challenge-rechallenge” argument, i.e., their contention that the combination of the first vaccination in February 2009, and the second vaccination, in August 2009, 

triggered or aggravated Trystan’s condition.

We are mindful that our authority to review factual 

findings made by the special master is extremely limited. 

As this court explained in Paluck, 786 F.3d at 1378, “we 

review findings of fact under the arbitrary and capricious 

standard.” See also Porter v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 663 F.3d 1242, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 13 Filed: 04/07/2020
14 SANCHEZ v. HHS

A

In Paluck, we affirmed the Claims Court’s decision 

overturning a special master’s denial of compensation to 

Vaccine Act claimants in circumstances similar in several 

respects to this case. We agree with the petitioners that 

this case has some features in common with Paluck, and

that this court’s analysis in Paluck provides helpful guidance for the analysis of the merits of the petitioners’ claims 

in this case. 

Like this case, Paluck involved a child with a mitochondrial disorder. And, as in this case, the evidence in Paluck

showed that vaccines can activate the immune system, 

which in an individual with a mitochondrial disease can 

result in oxidative stress that can, in turn, cause progressive neurological deterioration over time. See Paluck, 786 

F.3d at 1380–81. In fact, several of the scientific papers 

that the courts in Paluck pointed to as supporting the 

Palucks’ theory of liability were introduced by the 

Sanchezes in this case.

While there are similarities between this case and 

Paluck, there are differences as well, and because of those 

differences, this case cannot be decided based on Paluck

alone. In particular, the Claims Court in Paluck rejected 

the special master’s conclusion that the child’s post-vaccination deterioration did not align with the medical theory 

on which the petitioners relied, in that the regression was 

not “linear” and the child did not manifest identifiable 

symptoms of neurologic injury within three weeks of his 

vaccinations. The court sustained the Claims Court’s ruling that the special master’s decision was arbitrary and capricious in that respect; the Claims Court held that the 

special master disregarded significant probative evidence 

that the child “experienced rapid and progressive neurological deterioration within a medically acceptable interval 

following his vaccinations.” 786 F.3d at 1380. In light of 

the “compelling evidence of post-vaccination neuroCase: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 14 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 15

developmental regression,” this court concluded that the 

special master had “no reasonable basis for concluding that 

[the child] did not experience the progressive neurodegeneration predicted” by the petitioners’ medical theory. Id. at 

1382. 

This court in Paluck also concluded that the special 

master had erred by “setting a hard and fast deadline of 

three weeks between vaccination and the onset of clinically 

apparent symptoms of neurological injury,” which the court 

found was not supported by the medical literature in evidence. Id. at 1382–83. The court also found several of the 

inferences from the evidence drawn by the special master

to be unsupported, and it concluded that the special master 

had improperly disregarded MRI evidence indicating progressive neurodegeneration and contemporaneous statements from the child’s treating physicians. Id. at 1384–86.

In this case, unlike in Paluck, the special master did 

not adopt a strict time limit or a requirement of “linearity” 

for the manifestation of signs of Trystan’s neurological regression. Instead, the special master considered the period 

of time, together with the other evidence of the progression 

of Trystan’s disease, in attempting to determine the issue 

of causation. Nor did the special master draw the improper 

inferences noted by this court in Paluck or disregard medical evidence or the observations of the treating physicians. 

In fact, the special master in this case relied heavily on the 

observations (or the absence of observations) by the treating physicians in determining whether to credit the testimony given by Trystan’s parents. In sum, while there are 

substantial parallels between this case and Paluck, the differences between the two cases are such that the outcome 

of this case is not dictated by Paluck.

B

We next turn to the petitioners’ challenge to the special 

master’s causation analysis. That issue requires a close examination of the evidence in the record.

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 15 Filed: 04/07/2020
16 SANCHEZ v. HHS

The special master found the vaccines Trystan received 

on February 5, 2009, are known to cause fever, and fever 

can cause neural decompensation in someone with a preexisting mitochondrial disease. The special master concluded 

that Trystan clearly suffered a loss of skills after receiving 

the vaccine, and that the loss of skills was the manifestation of his Leigh’s syndrome. The critical finding made by 

the special master as to the effect of the vaccination, however, was that the period of time between the vaccinations 

in February 2009 and Trystan’s loss of skills no earlier 

than May 2009 was too long for the vaccinations to have 

been the likely trigger for his Leigh’s syndrome. It is that 

finding that is the principal focus of the petitioners’ challenge to the special master’s ruling.

In support of their argument on causation, the petitioners point to testimony from their experts that Trystan’s fever and inconsolable crying were evidence of the onset of 

neurodegeneration, and that Trystan’s arm contortions on

February 16, 2009, only 11 days after his vaccinations, 

were also indicative that he had suffered an adverse neurological event.

The special master rejected that argument, in large 

part because he concluded that Trystan was diagnosed 

with a cold on February 17, and that his symptoms the 

night before were of the type typically displayed by infants 

suffering from a cold. The petitioners do not challenge the 

finding that Trystan was suffering from a cold, but they 

contend that the evidence shows that he was also suffering 

from a neurological injury at that time. In particular, the 

petitioners dispute the special master’s finding that 

Trystan’s symptoms—his arm contortions in particular—

were symptoms of a cold. That finding, they contend, is 

wholly lacking in record support. 

Analyzing this issue is complicated by the manner in 

which the special master made factual findings relating to 

the events of February 16, 2009. In his 2013 Ruling 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 16 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 17

Finding Facts, the special master found that although 

Trystan “kept kicking his feet and jerking around” in his 

father’s arms on that evening, he “did not begin to exhibit 

arm contortions” at that time, and he “did not exhibit arm 

contortions” between that time and the time Ms. Sanchez 

took him to the doctor in late April 2009. In the 2018 Published Decision Denying Compensation, however, the special master found that on that evening, Trystan’s “arms 

contorted and he was jerking around.”

That discrepancy is significant. The government’s expert witnesses, testifying based on the special master’s 

2013 findings, said that the symptoms exhibited by 

Trystan on the night of February 16, 2009—inconsolable,

high-pitched crying and “jerking around” in his father’s 

arms—were consistent with a cold and were not indicative 

of a seizure. However, the government’s witnesses did not 

have before them the special master’s later finding that 

Trystan’s arm contortions began as early as February 16. 

Moreover, if the special master’s 2018 finding was based on 

the testimony of Trystan’s father, it seems plausible that 

Mr. Sanchez’s testimony—that Trystan repeatedly held his 

arm behind his back and kept returning it to that position—could be regarded as evidence of a seizure or dystonia, as the petitioners’ expert Dr. Steinman testified. And 

a seizure or dystonia at that time, Dr. Steinman testified, 

“could be evidence of brain damage.”

Importantly, because of the change in the findings 

made with respect to the arm contortions, the special master’s finding that Trystan’s behavior on the night of February 16 was consistent with a cold is not supported by expert 

testimony that specifically addressed the arm contortions. 

Because this issue is of central importance to the causation 

analysis, it is necessary to remand for further consideration of the causation issue in light of the special master’s 

findings in 2018 regarding Trystan’s arm contortions.

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 17 Filed: 04/07/2020
18 SANCHEZ v. HHS

A related issue that the special master should consider 

on remand has to do with the application of the second and 

third Althen factors: “(2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the 

injury, and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 

1278. The special master treated those two factors together as being directed to the single issue of causation, on 

which the petitioners bore the burden of proof. While it is 

true that the entire Althen test is generally directed to the 

issue of causation, Althen distinguishes between the three 

factors that are necessary to make out a prima facie case 

(on which the petitioners bear the burden of proof) and the 

question whether the injury was caused by factors unrelated to the vaccine (on which the government bears the 

burden of proof). If petitioners make a prima facie case under the first three factors, they are entitled to prevail unless the government shows, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that the injury was in fact caused by factors unrelated to the vaccine. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; see

Shalala v. Whitecotton, 514 U.S. 268, 270–71 (1995); 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B).

In this case, there is no question that Trystan suffered 

neurodegeneration beginning no later than May or June of 

2009. But for the cold he suffered on February 16, 2009, 

and the other infections he suffered during the spring of 

that year, the vaccinations might have been prime suspects 

as the triggering mechanism for his mitochondrial disease 

to manifest itself. To be sure, there was a several-month 

delay between the initial vaccines and the time the special 

master found that Trystan’s loss of skills began to be noticed. But that delay, by itself, was not necessarily dispositive. As the special master noted, there is some force to 

the point that in a child as young as Trystan, loss of skills 

would not be immediately noticed.

For that reason, it is important for the special master 

to make explicit findings as to two separate issues: (1) 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 18 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 19

whether there was a logical sequence of cause and effect 

linking Trystan’s vaccinations and his injuries as well as a 

proximate temporal relationship between the vaccinations 

and the onset of the injuries; and (2) whether Trystan’s infections between February and May of 2009 caused the 

manifestation of his Leigh’s syndrome, independent of his 

vaccinations. If the special master finds that the petitioners have not met their burden as to the first issue, it is unnecessary for the special master to address the second 

issue. But if the special master finds that the petitioners 

have met their burden of establishing a prima facie case as 

to the first issue, he must determine whether the government has met its burden as to the second. 

C

The petitioners also contend that the special master 

did not address the “challenge/rechallenge” claim raised by 

the petitioners’ experts. That theory of causation was that 

the combined effect of the February and August vaccinations caused or aggravated Trystan’s condition. Although 

that issue was raised in the petitioners’ pre-hearing brief 

and by the evidence, the special master did not address

that theory in his Published Decision Denying Compensation.

On review of the special master’s ruling, the Claims 

Court held that it was not necessary for the special master 

to address that issue expressly, in that the argument appeared to have been implicitly rejected in the special master’s factual findings. However, the findings that the 

special master made in his Ruling Finding Facts predated 

the testimony of the petitioners’ experts, much of which focused on the challenge/rechallenge theory. Moreover, the 

special master based his factual conclusion that Trystan’s 

condition did not deteriorate after the August 2009 vaccinations on the fact that the contemporaneous medical 

records did not corroborate the Sanchezes’ testimony to 

that effect. The record closest in time to the August 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 19 Filed: 04/07/2020
20 SANCHEZ v. HHS

vaccinations was the record prepared by Ms. Marin-Tucker 

regarding the August 17, 2009, visit when Trystan received 

his vaccinations. Based on that report the special master 

found that Trystan could not stand, walk, crawl, or hold his 

head up while sitting.

Six weeks later, when Trystan returned to the clinic for 

a follow-up visit. Based on Ms. Marin-Tucker’s report for 

that visit, the special master found that Trystan was “unable to grasp, sit, crawl, or make much eye contact.” While 

the two medical reports are generally similar, the special 

master’s findings with regard to the two reports suggest 

that Trystan may have suffered at least some additional 

loss of skills during the period between August and October 

2009, an issue the special master did not expressly address. 

The challenge/rechallenge theory is not frivolous, and 

does not appear to have been implicitly rejected. For those 

reasons, we conclude that the special master should address that theory expressly on remand and decide whether 

it supports compensation in this case.

D

Finally, it may be necessary for the special master to 

address a question that was left open in the last two pages 

of the special master’s decision denying compensation: 

whether the Secretary showed, because of Trystan’s mutations, the timing and severity of his Leigh’s syndrome 

would have been the same, regardless of the effect of the 

vaccinations.

This is a difficult issue on which the science has been 

developing rapidly. Each party’s experts testified on this 

issue at the December 2017 hearing. In light of the speed 

with which medical understanding of the course of genetic 

disorders such as Leigh’s syndrome has been expanding, 

however, the special master on remand may wish to give 

the parties an opportunity to supplement the record with 

any relevant medical research or reports postdating the 

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 20 Filed: 04/07/2020
SANCHEZ v. HHS 21

hearing held by the special master two and one-half years 

ago. 

For the reasons given, we vacate the judgment in this 

case and remand for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion.

No costs.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Case: 19-1753 Document: 32 Page: 21 Filed: 04/07/2020