# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-085V (to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MYKELLE JIVON D’TIOLE, * Special Master Corcoran * * Petitioner, * Filed: November 28, 2016 * v. * * Decision Without SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Hearing; Dismissal; Influenza HUMAN SERVICES, * (“Flu”) Vaccine; Narcolepsy; * Cataplexy. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Marvin Firestone, Marvin Firestone, MD, JD, and Associates, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CASE 1

On January 27, 2015, Mykelle Jivon D’ Tiole’s parents filed a petition 2 seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Inju ry Compensation Program (the “Vaccine

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of
certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furn ished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of pr ivacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id

.

2 The matter was originally filed by Petitioner’s parents on his behalf, due to his minor status. After Mr. D’Tiole attained majority while the case was pending, I ordered that he be identified as the petitioner in the caption. ECF No.

27.2 Program”). 3 In it, Petitioner alleged that the influe nza (“flu”) vaccine he received on December 13, 2011, caused him to develop na rcolepsy with cataplexy.

After the parties filed expert reports, and based u pon my initial review of the case record, I proposed that the matter be decided without holdi ng an evidentiary hearing and invited briefing on the substantive merits of Petitioner’s claim. Having completed my review of the evidentiary record and the partie s’ filings, I hereby GRANT Respondent’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record Dismissing the Case, and therefore DENY Petitioner’s request for compensation, for the
reasons stated below.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. D’Tiole was born on February 8, 1997. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 1. His early pediatric history
is not in contention in this case and ther efore requires no discussi on. On December 13, 2011, when he was 14 years old, he went to his pediatrician for a well teen visit. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 10. At that time, Petitioner received FluMist, 4 a live attenuated influenza vaccine (“LAIV”). Pet’r’s Ex. 9 at 1-2; Ex. 1 at 2; and Ex. 4 at 10. His parents had not given their consent for Mr. D’Tiole to receive the vaccine at that visit, and, after lear ning it had occurred, they were upset that it was administered without their advance approval. Pet’ r’s Ex. 1 at 2 ¶ 8. There are no records in the subsequent six weeks setting forth any reaction to this vaccine.

On February 1, 2012, Mr. D’Tiole hurt his wrist after a fall suffered while playing basketball and was taken for treatment at the John Muir Medical Center Emergency Department in Walnut Creek, California. Pe t’r’s Ex. 53 at 3-5. He was dia gnosed with a wrist fracture and underwent a closed reduction with percut aneous pinning under general anesthesia. Id. at 18-22. He was otherwise deemed healthy at the time, w ith no mention in the relevant records of any sleep-related problems. Id. at 4, 16.

3 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Ch ildhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99- 660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act.

4 As noted in Agnew v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-551V, 2016 WL 1612853, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2016), FluMist is a co ld-adapted vaccine received intranasa lly. It contains live, but attenuated (meaning reduced in virulence), strains of the wild flu virus. See FluMist Package Insert, filed on June 20, 2016, as Resp’t’s Ex. G (ECF No. 36-1), at 13-14. To achieve an immune response from the body’s adaptive immune system, the viral strains contained in the vaccine replicate at a temperature consistent with that found in the nasal cavity, but not at the higher temperatures found elsewhere in the body. Agnew, 2016 WL 1612853, at *3. As a result, the flu strain can replicate sufficiently to produce the antibodies necessary to fight a wild infection, without itself replicating enough to cause infection if transmitted to others. See Resp’t’s Ex. G at 13 (“the attenuated vaccine virus replicates to induce protective immun ity”). In this case, Petitioner received a trivalent version of the vaccine.3 On February 10, 2012, Petitioner saw his pediat rician for a follow-up examination of his wrist fracture, and was referred to an orthopedist. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 11. There was still no record of any sleep problems. Petitioner, however, has offered witness st atements suggesting that his sleep-related symptoms began ar ound this time. Thus, his mother, Ms. Sevela DePlush, states that she noticed Mr. D’Tiole behaving “differen tly” and “began noticing him exhibiting severe drowsiness” by February 2012, after his surgery. Pet’ r’s Ex. 1 at 2 ¶ 10. Ho wever, she attributed his symptoms to a normal post-surgery reaction or the medication he was taking for pain. Id. at 2 ¶¶ 10-11.

Over a month later, on March 26, 2012, Pe titioner saw his pediatrician again, now complaining of ear pain and feelin g tired all of the time, and the notes from the visit specifically state that he was falling asleep again at 11 a.m. af ter waking at 6 a.m. Pet’r’s Ex. 54 at 18. This is
the first medical record statement about the injury allege d in this case, but it is Ms. DePlush’s assertion that Petitioner’s symptoms continued to be evident in the period prior to this visit. See,

e.g., Pet’r’s Ex. 1 at ¶ 11. Mr. D’Tiole was prescr ibed antibiotics for his ear pain and was instructed to engage in better sleeping hygiene ( e.g., limiting television time before sleep). Id.

There is subsequently a nearly four-month gap in th e records, and thus no contemporaneous recording of any other sleep-re lated problems for Petitioner. But on July 18, 2012, Mr. D’Tiole was seen again by his pediatri cian with complaints of “problem with equilibrium x three months/hard ti me focusing.” Pet’r’s Ex. 54 at 17. 5 The notes from this visit, however, are somewhat contradictory, and do no t support the contention th at Petitioner’s sleep problems were progressing. Thus, th is record includes statements by Mr. D’Tiole that he was playing videogames late into the night, sleeping unt il noon thereafter, and having trouble focusing (presumably in connection with his vision, since the record also mentions an eye doctor visit) – but also that he was not experiencing dizziness or bala nce problems, and otherwise was doing “great in school.” Id

. 6 Petitioner’s treater assessed him w ith a dysfunctional sleep pattern
that could be treated in the sa me manner recommended in March. Id.

On September 6, 2012, Petitioner saw his pediat rician again, reitera ting prior complaints about focus problems and sleepiness. Pet’r’s Ex. 54 at 16. The note in the medical record states, “feels tired a lot, trouble fo cusing – twice a day x 6 mo.” Id. He also reported experiencing short “tremors” lasting a few seconds, involving hi s eyelids drooping and his eyes wandering. The impression was possible seizure activity, and he was referred to a neurologist at Children’s Hospital in Oakland, California.

5 The three-month onset reference in this July 2012 medical record would place onset in April – two months later than Ms. DePlush’s recollection.

6 Ms. DePlush’s declaration directly contradicts this stat ement, and Petitioner has not offered any explanation for why she should be believed rath er than the record itself. See Pet’r’s Ex. 1 at 3 ¶ 12 (“[h]e was doing poorly in school”).4 There, on October 5, 2012, Mr. D’Tiole underwent an initial neurol ogic evaluation, at which time an electroencephalogram (“EEG”) was performed. Pet’r’s Ex. 5 at 1. The results were interpreted as normal, with no evidence of epileptiform discharges or focal abnormalities.
Id. at 2. Nevertheless, Petitioner al so obtained a consultation ther eafter with Ali Mostajelean, M.D., of the hospital’s epilepsy department. Id. at 3-5. Dr. Mostajelean concluded, based on the examination and EEG results, that there was no evidence that Petitioner was suffering from epilepsy. The notes from this examination reiterat e concerns about Petiti oner’s dizzy spells and eye-fluttering episodes, but characterized them as only “recently experienced.” Id. at 3. Some reference was also made in these notes to Mr. D’Tiole’s sleep problems, but they were not identified as persistent; it wa s noted only that Petitioner often slept late on weekends, and poor sleep hygiene was again identified as the likely cause of such problems. Id. at 5.

In the months after, Mr. D’Tiole and his pare nts continued to invest igate the source of his sleep problems, which were becoming more pronounced. On December 16, 2012, Petitioner was seen in the Emergency Department at John Muir Medical Center in Wal nut Creek, CA, where he reported “he had 2 or 3 episodes at home where he felt weak a nd could not stand up and had some shaking of his extremities.” Pet’r’s Ex. 6 at 1. The chief complaint listed on the record was possible seizure. Id. The assessment section noted: “shaking episodes of uncerta in cause,” and a diagnosis of “altered consciousness” was given by Dan Buhler, M.D. Id. at 3; see also Pet’r’s Ex.

1 at 3.

On February 1, 2013, Petitioner saw his pediat rician again, at which time concerns about both his purported seizure activity and previously-e xperienced sleep issues were reported. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 14. Later that year, in August 2013, Mr. D’Tiol e’s parents took him for examination by the Stanford Hospital’s Sleep Medi cine Clinic in Redwood City, Cali fornia. Pet’r’s Ex. 7 at 1-12. Diagnoses provided after an initial examinati on were “hypersomnia due to medical condition
classified elsewhere and na rcolepsy with cataplexy 7 .” Id. at 1. Notes contained in the record from the August 21, 2013, visit reflect statements by Ms. DePlush that “everything seemed to start after [Petitioner] broke his wr ist and required anesthesia.” Id. at 2. They also recorded progression in his symptoms ove r that year, with greater a nd greater daytime sleepiness. Id. at 3.
The treater who examined Petitioner prescribed a trial of modafinil, 8 but also proposed
consideration of medication aime d at addressing narcolepsy or cataplexy after more data on Petitioner (including a sleep study) had been obtained. Id. at 6.

7 Cataplexy is a condition characterized by abrupt attacks of muscular weakness and hypotonia triggered by an emotional stimulus such as mirth, anger, fear, or surprise. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (32d ed. 2012) at 303 (hereinafter, “ Dorland’s ”).

8 Modafinil is a central nervous system stimulant, administered orally, used in the treatment of narcolepsy, obstructive sleep apnea, and sleep disorders associated with shift work. Dorland’s at 1171.5 By 2014 and thereafter, Petit ioner received further treatment for his symptoms, and narcolepsy and cataplexy were no longer mere ly suspected but conf irmed as the proper diagnoses for his condition. See generally Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Motion for Ruling on the Record, dated July 20, 2016 (ECF No. 37) (“Opp.”) at 5-8. The confirmation was strengthened through tests (performed at Stanfo rd Hospital’s Sleep Medi cine Clinic on January 15, 2014) revealing that Petitioner likely possessed the HLA allele associated with narcolepsy (HLA DQB1*0602). See Pet’r’s Ex. 7 at 27-31. It was duri ng treatment at the Sleep Medicine
Clinic that Petitioner was s een by Dr. Emmanuel Mignot, a noted expert on the topic of narcolepsy. Id . In a follow up visit on April 16, 2014, it was confirmed that Mr. D’Tiole’s test was positive for this HLA allele. Id . at 60. But Petitioner’s parents were not made aware that he had received FluMist until the spri ng of 2014, and therefore did not br ing this to the attention of the Sleep Clinic treaters. See Pet’r’s Ex. 1 at 4; Pet’r’s Ex. 9 at 1-2.

II. EXPERT REPORTS

A. Petitioner’s Expert – Dr. Steinman

Dr. Lawrence Steinman is Petitioner’s sole expert, although he submitted multiple reports in the case. He has opined that a viral comp onent of the FluMist vaccine that Mr. D’Tiole received was causally responsible for his subsequent narcolepsy with cataplexy.

First Report

Dr. Steinman is a professor in Stanfo rd University’s Departments of Neurology, Pediatrics, and Genetics, and the chair of Stanford’s Immunology Program. Pet’r’s Ex. 62 at 1 (Dr. Steinman’s curriculum vitae) . He has been elected to the In stitute of Medicine (“IOM”) and has published more than 400 articles, including arti cles related to his research on autoimmune disease and molecular mimicry. Id. Dr. Steinman’s primary focus is on multiple sclerosis, but he has conducted research, and authored papers, relevant to narcolepsy. See id. at 10, 35, 40. The core of Dr. Steinman’s opinion is found in his first expert report, filed not long after the case’s
initiation. See January 30, 2015 Report, filed on Februa ry 19, 2015, as Pet’r’s Ex. 11 (ECF No. 9-2) (“First Steinman Rep.”). In it, Dr. Steinm an reviews Mr. D’Tiole’s medical history before turning to Petitioner’s causal theory.

As Dr. Steinman’s first report notes, scientific and medical research in the past 20 to 30 years has resulted in a number of discoveries highly relevant herein. Narcolepsy (which Dr. Steinman characterized as “a chronic sleep disorder presenting with excessive day-time sleepiness and often cataplexy”) (First Steinman Rep. at 13)) has been associated (based upon tests of cerebral spinal fluid) with a deficiency in the protein hypocretin (also called orexin) – a neuropeptide that regulates arous al, wakefulness, and appetite. See Dorland’s at 901, 1333; C. Peyron et al., A Mutation in a Case of Early Onset Narcolepsy and a Generalized Absence of6 Hypocretin Peptides in Human Narcoleptic Brains , 6 Nature Medicine 9: 991 (2000) (Pet’r’s Ex. 26) (“Peyron”). This deficiency, in turn, has been shown to be the result of the loss of hypothalamic cells in the brain. See, e.g. , S. Nishino et al., Hypocretin (Orexin) Deficiency in Human Narcolepsy , Lancet 355, at 39 (2000) (Pet’r’s Ex. 25) (ECF No. 10-7); Peyron at 5.

Although the precise mechanism responsible for impairment of hypocretin-mediated neurotransmission is not yet fully understood, Dr. Steinman has proposed (for purposes of the present claim) an autoimmune process triggere d by viral components of flu vaccines such as FluMist. His reports opine that components from the wild flu vi rus contained in FluMist crossreact with certain self-p roteins in the brain resp onsible for sleep regulation, via the mechanism of molecular mimicry (a topic upon which Dr. Steinman possesses considerable expertise, and one he has opined upon in numerous other Program cases). 9 Specifically, nucleoprot eins contained in
the H1N1 strains found in FluMist would share “m olecular similarities” with certain amino acid peptides on the surface of the hypocretin receptors in the brain. First Steinman Rep. at 13-14. After receipt of the vaccine, in the course of the human bo dy’s adaptive immune response the host’s immune system is “tricked” into attack ing the receptors, thereby interfering with the hypocretin-mediated neurotransmission process that would, if functioning properly, prevent daytime sleepiness. Id. at 16-17.

Besides his expertise in studying the cau ses of other autoimmune illnesses, Dr. Steinman’s opinion in this case is rooted in studies involving the relationship between narcolepsy
and a different version of the flu vaccine than FluMist. Thus, he noted that Pandemrix – an
inactivated 10 form of the flu vaccine containing the H1N1 viral strain also found in FluMist – had been determined by several reputable studies to be closely associated with the development of narcolepsy in European children, after a 2010 outbr eak of narcolepsy in Finland. First Steinman Rep. at 20-21; M. Partinen et al., Increased Incidence and Clin ical Picture of Childhood Narcolepsy Following the 2009 H1N1 Pande mic Vaccination Campaign in Finland , 7 PLoSone 3:1-8 (2012) (Pet’r’s Ex. 44) (“Partinen”). Much of the literature th at focused on the outbreak, such as Partinen, had speculated as to whether th e cause of the narcolepsy was attributable to adjuvants in the vaccine, or some genetic predisposition unique to Finns. Partinen at 7-8. Such

9 See generally First Steinman Rep. at 7-13. Molecular mimicry has been defined to be a “sequence and/or conformational homology between an exogenous agent (foreign antigen) and self-antigen leading to the development of tissue damage and clinical disease from antibodies and T cells dir ected initially against the exogenous agent that also react against self-antigen.” Institute of Medicine, Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality at 70 (K. Stratton et al., eds. 2011) [herei nafter “Adverse Effects of Vaccines”]; see also L. Steinman,
Autoimmune Disease , 269 Scientific American 106-14 (Sept. 1993) (Pet’ r’s Ex. 13). In essence, in the course of the immunologic process begun after vaccination, antigens co mprised of protein sequences from the H1N1 strain erroneously interact with th e hypocretin receptors in th e brain, targeting them because of shared structural homologies between the components of the antigen and the receptors . First Steinman Rep. at 13.

10 A vaccine is rendered inactive through the process of destro ying the biological activity of the virus in the vaccine, by the action of heat or othe r physical or chemical means. Dorland’s at 925.7 literature also stressed the fact that the Pandemrix flu vaccine was the only form of the vaccine associated with an increased incidence of narcolepsy. Id. at 7 (“there is no evidence of an increased risk of narcolepsy with any other vaccine than the As03 ad juvanted Pandemrix”).

Two pieces of literatu re co-authored by Dr. Steinman took steps toward explaining why Pandemrix may have caused narcolepsy, and they pl ay a key role in the opinion he offers herein.

See S. Ahmed et al., Narcolepsy, 2009 A(H1N1) Pandemic Influenza, and Pandemic Influenza
Vaccinations: What is Known and Unknown About the Neurologi cal Disorder, the Role for Autoimmunity, and Vaccine Adjuvants , 50 J. of Autoimmunity 1- 11 (2014) (Pet’r’s Ex. 12) (“Ahmed I”); S. Ahmed et al., Antibodies to Influenza Nucle oprotein Cross-React with Human Hypocretin Receptor 2 , 7 Sci. Translational Med. 294 (S2015) (Pet’r’s Ex. 63) (“Ahmed II”). Although they were not both addresse d in Dr. Steinman’s first report, 11 they have since been filed in the action. They are im portant to understanding the founda tion of Petitioner’s theory, and so I am addressing them together.

Ahmed I was a review article proposing th at the relationship be tween Pandemrix and narcolepsy was most likely attri butable to “how the specific influenza antigen component” in Pandemrix was prepared. Ahmed I at 1. The article considered Partinen and other epidemiologic or laboratory studies involving Pandemrix. It specifically suggested that narcolepsy was properly
considered an autoimmune diseas e, and detailed the process by which antibodi es (produced as a result of molecular mimicry) would attack the hypocretin receptors. Id. at 3-4. Ahmed I evaluated the possibili ty (previewed in literature such as Partinen) that adjuvants specific to Pandemrix might have played a role in causing na rcolepsy, but noted that “no similar association has been reported to date with the [similarl y-adjuvanted] pandemic vaccine made using the Canadian inactivation/purificati on protocol,” suggesting that th e adjuvant itself may not have played a causal role. Id. at 8. Indeed, Ahmed I acknowledged that the fact th at the Canadian
version of Pandemrix was not associated with na rcolepsy suggested that the vaccine’s flu virus component (which was the same for both) was not itself to blame for the causal association with
the disease. Id. at 6.

In a section titled “Vaccine types and related immune res ponses” (Ahmed I at 4), there appears a discussion about the difference betwee n the formulation of the Pandemrix vaccine and an LAIV like FluMist, a portion of whic h warrants complete reproduction herein:

While it may be possible for the live vaccine virus or bacteria to rarely revert to its disease-causing form and thus be transm itted to other non-immune subjects, most live vaccines do not. Due to their similarity in stru cture with the natural vi rus or bacteria, live

11 At the time Dr. Steinman’s first expert report was filed in this case, Ahmed II had not yet been published, and thus Dr. Steinman could only tangentially refer to its findings. First Steinman Rep. at 16. His subsequent reports specifically relied upon it, however.8 vaccines could induce molecular mimicry sim ilar to that associated with the natural infection. However, during de velopment of a live vaccine, this concern for molecular mimicry is carefully considered and va ccine candidates demonstrating these attributes are screened for and excluded.

Ahmed I at 5 (emphasis added).

In Ahmed II, Dr. Steinman and his co-aut hors conducted a series of tests aimed at answering some of the many quest ions raised in Ahmed I. This study examined the sera of 20 Pandemrix-vaccinated narcoleptic patients. Ahmed II at 10. The article began by observing that another adjuvanted inactive pandemic flu vacci ne similar to Pandemrix containing the same
H1N1 viral strain – Focetria – was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy, further suggesting that there was something unique to Pandemrix that made it more pathologic. Id. at 1. Ahmed II’s authors performed a study aimed at id entifying the specific mimic between protein sequences from the flu strain contained in Pa ndemrix and the hypocretin receptors, finding that there was a homologous flu nucleoprotein peptide. Id. at 2-3. Based on this determination, they next identified hypocretin recep tor antibodies produced from th e cross-reaction between the mimic and the receptors, thereby interfering w ith the orexin production and resulting in narcolepsy. Id. at 3. Those antibodies were detected in the blood sera of higher numbers of
Pandemrix-vaccinated individuals with narcolepsy than individuals who did not have the disease.
Id.

After that step, Ahmed II’s authors reached th e heart of their discovery with respect to Pandemrix. They compared the nucleoprotein antibody content found in individuals who had received eight different inactivated flu vaccine s plus three monovalent A(H1N1) pdm09 vaccines (a group that included Pa ndemrix). Ahmed II at 4. 12 Of the latter three, Focetria had 72.7 percent fewer nucleoproteins than Pandemrix – “suggesti ng the possibility that lower [nucleoproteins]
concentrations in Focetria could have atte nuated both the immune response . . . and the subsequent generation of [ nucleoprotein] antibodies capab le of cross-reactivity.” Id. Ahmed II’s authors do not formally propose an explanation for th is difference, but they did note that Focetria was “differently manufactured” (Ahmed II at 1). For its part, Ahmed I contained a longer discussion of the different manufacturing pr ocesses for these Pandemrix-like vaccines (specifically, the purifica tion procedures for the viral antigen s they contained). Ahmed I at 7.

Dr. Steinman’s first report went on to opine that (in addition to his causation theory) the other prongs of the Federal Circuit’s test for vaccine causation claims in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) had been met. With respect to the second, “did cause” prong, he proposed that, cons istent with the science of immunology and the

12 FluMist was not included in any of the Ahmed II tests.9 theory of molecular mimicry, Mr. D’Tiole’s me dical records evidenced a response to the flu vaccine. First Steinman Rep. at 22. Regarding the third prong, Dr. Steinman maintained that the timing of onset of Petitioner’s first symptoms, in February 2012, was consistent with his understanding of how long the pro cess for an immunologic response of this sort would take, based on scientific studies like Schonberger et al., Guillain-Barre Syndrome Following Vaccination in the National Influenza I mmunization Program, United States, 1976-1977 , 110 Am. J. of Epidemiology 2:105 (1979) (Pet’r’s Ex. 38); First Steinman Rep. at 17-18.

Supplemental Reports

Dr. Steinman also filed two supplemental e xpert reports, responding at length to points made by both of Respondent’s experts. See September 28, 2015 Report, filed on September 28, 2015, as Pet’r’s Ex. 61 (ECF No. 25-2) (“Sec ond Steinman Rep.”); January 10, 2016 Report, filed on January 19, 2016, as Pet’r’s Ex. 66 (ECF No. 31-2) (“Third Steinman Rep.”).

Dr. Steinman’s second report attempted to rebut the assertion of Respondent’s first expert, Dr. Michael Kohrman, that there is no demonstrated link between FluMist and narcolepsy. Dr. Steinman insisted that there is in fact a link, as the promotional materials for
FluMist reveal that it contains the same nucleoprotein that Dr. St einman’s research demonstrated cross-reacts with hypocre tin receptors in the brain. Second Steinman Rep. at 2, 7. While he admitted that the research he had participated in (as reflected by Ahmed I and II) did not involve FluMist specifically (or even a comparable LA IV), it had studied the nucleoproteins derived
from the same viral strain as that contained in FluMist. Id. at 7. He furthe r acknowledged the absence of epidemiologic studies connecting narc olepsy with FluMist, but disagreed that the primary epidemiologic evidence c ited by Dr. Kohrman (Duffy et al., Narcolepsy and Influenza A (H1N1) Pandemic 2009 Vaccina tion in the United States , 83 Neurology 1827 (Oct. 15, 2014) (Resp’t’s Ex. D-13) (“Duffy”)) was persuasive or reliable evidence disproving his theory. Id . at 3. Dr. Steinman asserted that the Duffy results (whi ch are discussed in greater detail below) were not relevant to Mr. D’Tiole’s case, because the study did not cover the form of flu vaccine from
the 2011-12 season in which Mr. D’Tiole was vaccina ted, and thus did not involve the same viral
strain. Id.

Additionally, Dr. Steinman reit erated his view that there wa s a strong correlation between the wild H1N1 virus and narcolepsy – somethi ng addressed in Ahmed I and II. Second Steinman Rep. at 5; Ahmed I at 7-8; Ahmed II at 6. In so arguing, he relied on F. Han et al., Narcolepsy Onset is Seasonal and Increased Following the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic in China , 70 Am. Neurological Ass’n 410 (2011) (R esp’t’s Ex. A-3) (“Han”). Ha n was a retrospective study of narcolepsy onset in patients diagnosed in Beijing, China from 1998-2010. Id. at 1. In Dr. Steinman’s reading, Han showed that the occurr ence of narcolepsy onset was seasonal, based upon a reported increase in the condition’s onse t following the 2009 H1N1 winter influenza10 pandemic. Second Steinman Rep. at 5-6; Han at 5-6. Dr. Steinman noted that Han could be interpreted to mean that the wild H1N1 influe nza virus itself, along w ith other upper airway infections, was highly correlated to na rcolepsy. Second Steinman Rep. at 6. However, weaknesses in these arguments were anticipated in some of Dr. Steinman’s own earlier work. Thus, as Ahmed II notes, studies outside China ha ve not shown an increase in narcolepsy cases in unvaccinated patients, and Beijing’s dense populat ion (coupled with low vaccination numbers) was deemed to have possibly contributed to th e increased narcolepsy cases rather than the prevalence of the wild virus. Ahmed II at 6.

Dr. Steinman also rejected the significance of points made by Dr. Kohrman that none of Mr. D’Tiole’s treating doctors linke d the vaccination to the narcolep sy in the records, observing that the science linking narcolepsy and influenza vaccines is currently the subject of advanced research of which they were likely unaware. Second Steinman Rep. at 7-8. He also noted that Mr. D’Tiole’s vaccination history ha d not been made clear to all of his treaters – but that if it had, and if they had been aware that he had received the flu vaccine before his narcolepsy symptoms began, they would likely have considered it a potential causal factor. Id. at 8.

Dr. Steinman’s third report addressed both Dr. Kohrman and the arguments of Respondent’s other expert, Dr. Andrew MacGinnitie. This final report was much longer than the second, and nearly as long as the first, given the number of t opics Dr. Steinman chose to address and points he hoped to rebut. In it , Dr. Steinman asserted that Ah med II was far more important than Respondent allowed, given its scope and the large number of scientists involved in all aspects of the studies it conducte d. Third Steinman Rep. at 6. Howe ver, he did candidly discuss its limitations, noting that neither he nor Ahmed II’ s other authors denied their existence. Third Steinman Rep. at 12-14. Thus, while Dr. Steinman would have liked to test more than 20 clinical sera samples from patients with post-vaccination narc olepsy to lend more certainty to the results, additional samples were not available due to lo cal health authorities’ regulations regarding
ethical informed consent. Id . at 13. He echoed this sentiment regarding the inability to obtain more appropriate controls. Id. at 17. However, Dr. Steinman a sserted that Ahmed II’s findings
were still reliable and sufficient to form the basis of a medically plausible theory. Id.

Dr. Steinman also repeated his arguments a bout the reliability of the Duffy epidemiologic evidence (showing zero cases of narcolepsy associated with FluMist vaccination), asserting that its findings were not meaningful because the incidence rate (the expected cases of narcolepsy absent vaccination) was too low in the first pl ace. Third Steinman Rep. at 9. If, he reasoned, the background incidence rate is less than one case in the investigated groups, there is no way to actually draw any meaningful conclusions from the study. Id. He also noted that the Duffy authors were unsure of the expect ed incidence rate of narcolepsy by a factor of 10, which Dr.
Steinman understood to mean that the author s did not even know the true baseline rate. Id. Because of these limitations, Dr. Steinman argued that Duffy should not be given much weight.11 Dr. Steinman next addressed the various scientific evidence showing that the crossreactive nucleoprotein antibodies we re present in patients without narcolepsy (a matter Ahmed II explicitly acknowledged). Third Steinman Rep. at 14; Ahmed II at 8-9. He offered a possible explanation, proposing that the presence of the autoantibodies c ould simply reflect a subacute infection, and thus sign al the first steps of disease deve lopment – especially when found in individuals that also likely carry the narcolep sy susceptibility allele (HLA DQB1*0602). Third Steinman Rep

. at 15. He noted that several studies s how that up to 20 percent or more of otherwise healthy individuals could have an tinuclear antibodies a ssociated with other autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, and multiple sclerosis. Id. at 15 (citing Ahmed II at 8-9). Dr. Steinman thus did not find this a significant detracting point from his theory relati ng the nucleoprotein antibodies to narcolepsy.

Dr. Steinman also reacted to Dr. Kohrman’s reliance on an article wr itten in response to
Ahmed II. See A. Vassalli et al., Comment on “Antibodies to Influenza Nucleoprotein CrossReact with Human Hypocretin Receptor 2 , 7 Science Translational Medicine 314 (2015), filed as Resp’t’s Ex. C-1 (“Vassalli”); Third Steinman Re p. at 19. Vassalli included data from narcolepsy studies involving dogs and mice, and argued that although the mechanism causing destruction of the hypocretin receptors in narcoleptic patients re mained unclear, there was no evidence in these studies that antibodies ag ainst the hypocretin receptors were th e cause of narcol epsy. Vassalli at
1. In Dr. Steinman’s own rebuttal article 13 to the Vassalli comment, he had discussed the study’s failure to provide additional da ta regarding the influenza viru s. Third Steinman Rep. at 19. Dr.
Steinman concluded that because the Vassalli data contained no studies related to influenza or cross-reactivity specifica lly, the conclusions reached in the study were preliminary, and it would be premature to determine the relevancy of such conclusions. Id

.

Finally, Dr. Steinman reiterated his prior assertion (s et forth in his first report) that the nucleoprotein in FluMist has the same protein sequence as the hypocretin receptors in the brain, and hence sufficient homology for an autoimmune cr oss-reactive process to occur, at least in theory. Third Steinman Rep. at 20-21. Becaus e of this matching sequence, Dr. Steinman expressed confidence that molecular mimicry was the mechanism linking the FluMist vaccine to Petitioner’s narcolepsy, especia lly given the relevant legal causation standard applicable in Vaccine Program cases. See id. at 21-22.

B. Respondent’s Experts

1. Dr. Michael Kohrman

13 L. Steinman et al., Response to Comment on “Antibodies to Influenza Nucleoprotein Cross-React with Human Hypocretin Receptor 2 , 7 Sci. Translational Med. 314 (Nov. 2015), filed as Pet’r’s Ex. 74 (ECF No. 31-10).12 Respondent’s first expert report was author ed by Dr. Michael Kohrman, who primarily opined that the relevant medical and scientific literature reveals no evidence that a live H1N1- containing influenza vaccination is associated with narcolepsy. See June 29, 2015 Report, filed on July 13, 2015, as Resp’t’s Ex. A (ECF No. 22- 1) (“First Kohrman Rep.”). Further, he interpreted Mr. D’Tiole’s histor y of delayed sleep phase, poor sleep hygiene, and obstructive sleep apnea as making it highly difficult to pinpoint an onset date for Mr . D’Tiole’s narcolepsy. First Kohrman Rep. at 2-8.

As of the date of his first expert report, 14 Dr. Kohrman was a Prof essor of Pediatrics, Neurology, and Surgery at the University of Chica go. First Kohrman Rep. at 1; Resp’t’s Ex. B at 1. The majority of his practice is clinical wor k, while approximately 20 percent of his time is devoted to research. First Kohrman Rep. at 1

. He is board certified in Child Neurology and Psychiatry, with a special focus in Child Neurology. Id. Additionally, he has qualifications in clinical neurophysiology, sleep medicine, and ep ilepsy, and is board certified by the American Board of Sleep Medicine, among other certifications . Resp’t’s Ex. B at 2-4. His clinical practice focuses on treating refractory epilepsy, with an underlying interest in sleep medicine. Id. at 1. He treats child patients with epilepsy and sleep problems on a daily basis. Id. at 2. His opinion arose
from review of Mr. D’Tiole’s medi cal records and his medical history. Id.

Dr. Kohrman first addressed Dr. Steinman’s theory that FluMist could be linked to narcolepsy. He began by notin g that Dr. Steinman’s own re search had nothing to do with FluMist, but rather had proposed (at l east before the publication of Ahmed II) 15 that the adjuvant in the Pandemrix vaccine (a different form of flu vaccine, moreover) could be the possible cause of narcolepsy in the European studies. First Kohrman Rep. at 9. FluMist is a non-adjuvanted vaccine, meaning that the adjuvant suggested to cau se narcolepsy would not have been present in
Mr. D’Tiole’s vaccine. Ahmed I also hypothesized that the antigens in the various vaccines studied were possibly different, leading Dr. Kohrman to conclude that Dr. Steinman’s research was not supportive of cross- reactivity between FluMist and the hypocretin receptors. Id . At bottom, all of the reported vaccine -related cases of narcolepsy we re linked to vaccines produced in a single antigen extraction method, and then administered with an adjuvant. Id. at 11. There
was thus no evidence that a live influenza v accine is also associated with narcolepsy.

Dr. Kohrman relied on the Duffy epidemio logic study to bulwark his opinion. Duffy’s
authors studied the associati on between narcolepsy and the H1N1 vaccine in its various

14 Dr. Kohrman is now the Director of Pediatric Neurology at Akron Children’s Hospital in Akron, Ohio. See Akron Children’s Hospital, https://www.akronchildrens.org/cms/doc tors/michael-kohrman-md (last visited Nov. 21, 2016).

15 As noted above, Dr. Steinman’s first report did not includ e specific reference to Ahmed II, which had not yet been published, and therefore Dr. Kohrman’s response to the initial report in this respect addressed an issue (the adjuvant’s role in causing narcolepsy) that Ahmed II ruled out. Respondent’s experts thereafter modified their responses to Petitioner’s expert’s opinion in light of Ahmed II’s findings.13 permutations, surveying 650,995 individuals in the United States vaccinated with the 2009 pandemic vaccine. Duffy at 1823

. Both the inactivated form of the vaccine and LAIVs were included. Of the patients included in the obser ved sample, zero developed symptoms during the 180 days following receipt, despite an expected incidence of 6.52. Id. In the 2010-11 seasonal flu vaccine study, 870,530 individuals received some form of the vaccine, but only two had onset of narcolepsy symptoms during the defined time period, compared to 8.83 expected. Id. at 1827. Out of the 45,246 individuals be tween the ages of 10 and 19 who received an LAIV, none developed narcolepsy despite an incidence rate of 3.84 per 100,000 individuals (meaning .83 cases of narcolepsy would have been expected). Id. The authors concluded that the forms of influenza vaccines in the United States containing the A(H1N1) virus strain could not be associated with an increased risk of narcolepsy. Id. at 1823. Further, the Duffy authors hypothesized that the antigens in this particular H1N1 vaccine strain were themselves not sufficient to increase narcolepsy incidences. Id

.

Dr. Kohrman also presented lite rature to support his assertion that the fl u wild virus is not linked to narcolepsy. He cited an article by Partinen – the same scientist whose research on the
Pandemrix vaccine’s link to narcol epsy in Finland was discussed by Dr. Steinman in his various reports. M. Partinen et al., No Serological Evidence of Infl uenza A H1N1pdm09 Virus Infection as a Contributing Factor in Childhood Narcol epsy after Pandemrix Vaccination Campaign in
Finland , 8 PLOSone 1:7 (2013) (filed as Resp’t’s Ex. A-2) (“Partinen II”). Partinen II found that it was unlikely the w ild H1N1 virus had contributed to th e increase in chil dhood narcolepsy in Finland after receipt of the adjuvanted Pandemrix vaccine. Partinen II at 7. Even the Han article relied on by Dr. Steinman did not support a link between the wild H1N1 virus and narcolepsy, Dr. Kohrman maintained. First Kohrman Rep. at 10. Han’s authors had acknowledged that the sample of patients in the study wa s not representative of China as a whole. Han at 7. Thus, Dr. Kohrman argued, because the article did not cons titute a reliable epidemiological study of narcolepsy in China, no direct link between the wild H1N1 virus and narcolepsy could be inferred. First Kohrman Rep. at 10.

Dr. Kohrman further proposed that Petitione r’s own medical histor y did not support his
claim about the causal role of the FluMist vacc ine. Mr. D’Tiole had a documented history of poor sleep habits and obstructive sleep apnea mont hs before the diagnosis of narcolepsy was confirmed, making it difficult to identify when th e actual onset of his symptoms might have
occurred. Id . at 11. Dr. Kohrman also noted that no ac ute symptoms were reported after Mr.
D’Tiole’s FluMist vaccination. Id. at 8.

Respondent filed a supplemental report from Dr. Kohrman as well, reacting to Dr. Steinman’s second report. See December 23, 2015 Report, filed on January 8, 2016, as Resp’t’s Ex. C (ECF No. 28-1) (“Second K ohrma n Rep.”). In it, Dr. Kohrman examined Dr. Steinman’s hypothesis (supported now by Ahmed II) that the nucleoprotein antigens in FluMist cross-react14 with hypocretin receptors, causing narcoleps y. Second Kohrman Rep. at 2. Although such nucleoproteins might be present in killed vaccine s like Pandemrix, Dr. Kohr man pointed out that the vaccine at issue here, FluMist, is a live attenuated vaccine that involves a different master
donor virus as well. Id. He further examined the development process for FluMist, finding that the nucleoprotein present in FluMist is derive d from the Master Donor Virus A/AA/6/60, rather than the Influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus. Id. at 3-5; B. Zhou et al., Engineering Temperature Sensitive Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines From Emerging Viruses , 30 Vaccine 3691:3691-92 (2012) (Resp’t’s Ex. C-2) (ECF No. 28-3). Thus, it could not be assumed th at the nucleoproteins derived from H1N1 and pres ent in Pandemrix were equa lly present in FluMist. Id. at 5. Dr. Steinman’s third report, however, attempted to di minish the strength of this point by observing that the protein sequences for th e nucleoproteins that he allege d were cross-reacting with the hypocretin receptors were the same for FluMist and Pandemrix. Third Steinman Rep. at 19-21.

Dr. Kohrman’s supplemental report also high lighted the uniqueness of Pandemrix and itsantigens. He thus noted that in Ahmed II, 85 percent of patients had antibodies to the hypocretin2 receptor, but 35 percent of vaccinated patients who did not develop narcolepsy also exhibited these antibodies. Second Kohrman Rep. at 2, citing Ahmed II at 7. Meanwhile, those patients
vaccinated with Focetria had no antibodies against this hypocretin receptor. Id. Dr. Kohrman relied on these findings to conclude that Pande mrix’s formula and make-up made it difficult to extrapolate conclusions about its association with narcolepsy to other forms of the flu vaccine –
even ones more similar to Pandemrix than FluMist.

Dr. Kohrman ultimately maintained that th ere is no clear understanding yet for what causes the lack of hypocretin in narcolepsy patients, and this, plus the lack of scie ntific evidence and/or medical literature suppor ting a link between narcolepsy a nd FluMist, made him unable to conclude that Mr. D’Tiole’s narcolepsy wa s likely vaccine-related. Second Kohrman Rep. at 5.

2. Dr. Andrew MacGinnitie

Dr. MacGinnitie also submitted two expert reports on behalf of Respondent. His first report set forth the opinion that while there migh t be reliable epidemiologic evidence linking an increased rate of narcolepsy to the Pandemrix vaccine, as well as some tentative evidence of a link to the H1N1 wild type variant, there wa s no such evidence linking the FluMist vaccine, given its distinct formulation. See December 21, 2015 Report, filed on January 8, 2016, as Resp’t’s Ex. D (ECF No. 29-1) (“First MacGinnitie Rep.”).

Dr. MacGinnitie is an attending physician and the clinical director for the Division of Immunology at Boston Children’s Hospital. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 1; Resp’t’s Ex. E. He is
also an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Firs t MacGinnitie Rep. at 1. He is board certified in Allergy/Immunology and Pediatrics, and has been in practice as an15 allergist/immunologist for 15 years. Id. Further, he has seen patients with various immunologic diseases, including reactions to vaccines. Id

.

Dr. MacGinnitie explained the difference s in production and administration between Pandemrix and FluMist, as well as the different and distinct mechanistic ways the vaccines stimulate an immune response. Id . at 9. Subunit inactive vaccines (like Pandemrix) are produced by growing several influenza strains in chicken e gg cells, which are then inactivated to kill the potentially infectious virus. Id. ; R.J. Cox et al., Influenza Virus: Immunity and Vaccination Strategies , Scandinavian J. of Immunology 59:6 (2004) (Resp’t’s Ex. D-11) (ECF No. 30-2).
Some of these subunit vaccines also include an adjuvant to increase the immune response. Id. LAIVs such as FluMist, by contrast, are cold -adapted, delivered into the nose where they replicate in the nasal epithelium, rather than in the lower respiratory tract (i.e., the lungs). Id. at 8-11. FluMist was, by design, intended to result in more limited viral replication in the same region of the body where the wild flu virus mi ght attack (the mucosal membranes of the respiratory tract), but would also generate antibo dy titers lower than that of a subunit vaccine like Pandemrix. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 9

. 16 It is those antibodies that would, under Dr. Steinman’s theory, produce the autoimmune reaction, via molecular mimicry, necessary to inhibit the hypocretin receptors.

Further, narcolepsy has been linked to only one of these specific vaccine types – adjuvanted subunit vaccines. Firs t MacGinnitie Rep. at 9. Adjuva nted vaccines were shown in data to elicit a gr eater response than non- adjuvanted vaccines. Id. ; C. Waddington et al., Safety and Immunogenicity of ASO3B Adjuvanted Split Virion Versus Non-Adjuvanted Whole Virion H1N1 Influenza Vaccine in UK Children Aged 6 Months-12 Years , BMJ 340, at *8 (2010) (Resp’t’s Ex. D-12) (ECF No. 30-3). Pandemrix is an adjuvanted va ccine, while FluMist is an LAIV and is non-adjuvanted. Fi rst MacGinnitie Rep. at 9-10. Looking at the differences in the production of the two vaccines, the immune responses they cau se, and the difference between adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted vaccines, Dr. MacGinnitie c ould not conclude that any
demonstrated link between Pandemrix and narcol epsy applied to a non-adjuvanted vaccine like
FluMist.

Dr. MacGinnitie also emphasized that reliab le epidemiologic evidence (in particular, Duffy) demonstrated that there was in fact no connection between FluMist and narcolepsy. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 10. Duffy observed zero cases of narc olepsy out of thousands of patients who received FluMist. Duffy at 1. This result was the same for non-adjuvanted subunit vaccines during the 2009 influenza season. Id. at 5. The study was also extended to the 2010 influenza season, but again, no case s were found in nearly 130,000 studied individuals. Id. If there were a

16 As previously noted, Dr. Steinman agreed with this pr oposition in his own literature, such as the Ahmed articles (although he did not acknowledge the point in the expert reports filed in this case). See, e.g., Ahmed I at 5.16 link between FluMist and narcolepsy, at least one cas e would have been seen in such a large test group of patients, Dr. MacGinnitie proposed.

Dr. MacGinnitie raised anot her point that he maintained undercut Petitioner’s theory. Narcolepsy is almost always seen in patien ts, like Mr. D’Tiole, w ho have the HLA DQB1*0602 allele. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 3. This HLA pr otein produces protein fr agments on the cells’ surfaces, and T-cells (that would be generated in an immune response, whether brought on by infection or immunization) recognize this combination. Id. When the T-cells are activated, they kill infected cells and help B-cells to generate antibodies. Id. Dr. MacGinnitie stressed that because most patients with narcolepsy carry this a llele, T-cells spec ific to it would be essential to develop narcolepsy. Id. Yet there is to date insufficient scientific evidence that these T-cells exist. Indeed, the only literature suggesting T-cell involvement in the development of narcolepsy was a paper written by Dr. Mignot, one of Petitioner’s treaters at Stanford’s Sleep Center. E. Mignot et al., CD4+ T Cell AutoImmunity to Hypocreti n/Orexin and Cross-Re activity to a 2009 H1N1 Influenza A Epitope in Narcolepsy , 5 Sci. Translational Med. 216 (2013) (filed as Resp’t’s Ex. D-4) (“Mignot”). Mignot showed that a fragment of the influenza hemagglutinin protein was cross-reactive with hypocretin, and activated T-cells were identified in narcolepsy patients that recognized both hypocretin and the hemagluttinin protein, thus supporting the hypothesis that the immune response to the hemagl uttinin protein coul d also damage the cells that produce hypocretin. Mignot at 7, 9. But th e Mignot paper was ultimately re tracted because its results could not be replicated, and ther efore a critical component needed to confirm Petitioner’s theory was missing. 17

Dr. MacGinnitie devoted some time in his fi rst report to attacking the bases for Dr. Steinman’s theory about cross -reactivity between proteins in the flu vaccine and hypocretin receptors. He first noted that the evidence supporting this theory was limited to Ahmed II – a single report written by Ahmed and Dr. Steinman based on a very small sample of 20 patients. First MacGinnitie Rep. at 6. He also argued that Ahmed II lacked specific controls, because it
failed to include data on antibodies in individuals who received the Pandemrix vaccine but did not develop narcolepsy, or in patients who developed narcolepsy unrelated to vaccination. Id. at 7. According to Dr. MacGinnitie, this lack of appropriate controls reduced the reliability of findings made about the importance of these anti bodies. In sum, Dr. MacGinnitie did not believe that a single peer-reviewed report without a ppropriate controls was sufficient support for

17 Dr. Steinman also acknowledged that Mignot had been retracted, but emphasized that this was not due merely to an inability to replicate results, but rather due to fraud in misrepresenting its findings. Third Steinman Rep. at 1-5. For purposes of the present case, this is a distinction w ithout a difference – the point remains that an element of proof that would corroborate the more general framework of Petitioner’s theory about the autoimmune nature of narcolepsy is missing. But, because I find that Petitioner’s theory is defici ent for reasons outside of the broader argument about the causes or nature of narcolepsy, the inability of researchers to date to provide this critical probative link that would add scientific reliability to the overall theory is somewhat of a tangential matter, for purposes of determining entitlement.17 Petitioner’s theory, nor did it constitute eviden ce that the discussed antibodies are actually involved in the development of narcolepsy in patients.

Dr. MacGinnitie additio nally took issue with Dr. Steinman ’s alleged failure to explain why the nucleoprotein antibodies upon which he relied in his theory were also present in patients without narcolepsy. More than 50 percent of childre n in Ahmed II possessed the same crossreactive antibodies, but did no t suffer from narcolepsy. Id. at 6-7. Becaus e of this, Dr.
MacGinnitie did not believe that these antibodies were as critical to causing narcolepsy as Dr. Steinman’s theory suggested.

Respondent submitted a supplemental repo rt from Dr. MacGinnitie as well. See January 31, 2016 Report, filed on February 3, 2016, as Resp’t’s Ex. F (ECF No. 33-1) (“Second MacGinnitie Rep.”). The supplemental report responded to several points made by Dr. Steinman in his January 2016 third report, but otherwise presented little new argument or evidence. Thus,
Dr. MacGinnitie reaffirmed his view that Duffy was reliable evidence that there was no connection between FluMist and narcolepsy . Second MacGinnitie Rep. at 2. Though Dr.
Steinman criticized the low base line rate in the study, Dr. MacG innitie asserted that a low background rate is epidemiologically desirable, si nce it renders even the slightest increase in
observed cases easier to note. Id. at 1-2. He also stressed that, out of over 300,000 individuals receiving LAIV flu shots in the Duffy study, not a single identified case of narcolepsy occurred.
Id. In Dr. MacGinnitie’s view, ther e would have to have been some cases of narcolepsy observed if a link truly existed.

Dr. MacGinnitie objected to Dr. Steinman’s hyp othesis that the lack of observed cases of narcolepsy related to inactivated influenza vaccin es in the United States was attributable to the lack of individuals with the HLA DQB1*0602 alle le in the United States (as compared to Finland and Sweden). Second MacGinnitie Rep. at 2. He admitted that the number of cases would potentially be affected by the prevalence of the allele in a population, but noted that the
number would also be aff ected by the population size. Id. The United States is more than 20 times larger than Finland and Sweden combined, meaning that any link between the allele and narcolepsy would have to be evident – but was not in the sample considered in Duffy. Id.

Finally, Dr. MacGinnitie expressed some a dditional thoughts abou t the competing flu
vaccine formulations in this case and their relationship to Pe titioner’s theory. Thus, and in
reaction to Dr. Steinman’s assertions that Re spondent could not show that Duffy studied the
same formulation of FluMist as that relevant to this case, he stated that th e 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasonal influenza vaccine requirements were functionally the same. Second MacGinnitie Rep. at 3; see FDA News Release July 30, 2010, FDA Approves Vaccines fo r the 2010-2011 Influenza

Season (Pet’r’s Ex. 72) (ECF No. 31-8) ; FDA News Release July 18, 2011, FDA Approves Vaccines for the 2011-2012 Influenza Season (Pet’r’s Ex. 73) (ECF No. 31-9). Thus, according18 to Dr. MacGinnitie, the flu strain in the vacci ne Mr. D’Tiole received was equivalent to the
contents in the vaccine studied in Duffy, even though that st udy involved different years. Id. Overall, Dr. MacGinnitie maintained, the most l ogical interpretation of the data and literature presented in this case was that any increased ri sk of narcolepsy was associated only with the Pandemrix vaccine, and possibly a weaker co rrelation to the wild type flu infection. Id.

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

As noted above, Petitioner’s parents origina lly filed this action in January 2015, alleging that his receipt of the flu vaccine in December 2011 caused him to develop narcolepsy with cataplexy. Petition at 1. About a month later Peti tioner filed his first e xpert report from Dr.
Steinman. ECF No. 9. Petitioner th en filed medical records along w ith the literature offered by Dr. Steinman in support of his opinion, and then the Statement of Completion on March 31, 2015 (ECF No. 18).

Respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report on July 13, 2015, asserting that Mr. D’Tiole was not entitled to compensation because he could not carry his burden of proof under Althen

. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 21). Sp ecifically, Respondent alle ged that there was no evidence connecting Petitioner’s proposed theory to the vaccine he received. ECF No. 21 at 5. Further, none of Petitioner’s treating doctors had id entified the vaccine as a potential cause of
Petitioner’s condition. Id. Respondent at that time also file d her own expert report from Dr.
Kohrman. See generally First Kohrman Rep.

After the Rule 4(c) Report was filed, Petitioner filed a supplemental expert report from Dr. Steinman on September 28, 2015 (Second Steinman Rep.). This prompted Respondent to file in January 2016 additional expert reports of her own – a supplemental report from Dr. Kohrman, plus a new report from Dr. MacGinnitie. See generally Resp’t’s Exs. C and D, filed as ECF Nos. 28 and 29. The expert report filing continued, with Petitioner filing a third report from Dr. Steinman on January 19, 2016 (Third Steinman Rep.). Respondent for her part filed a supplemental report thereafter from Dr. MacG innitie on February 3, 2016. Second MacGinnitie Rep.

I thereafter held a status c onference with the parties to discuss the case’s progress and possible resolution. I proposed th at Respondent consider moving fo r a decision on the papers in lieu of hearing, since the case’s history to date, pl us my assessment of the nature of the disputed
issues – issues that both side’s experts had addressed in great de tail – suggested to me that this
would be the most e xpeditious approach to resolving the case. See Order, dated February 16, 2016. Respondent accepted my proposal, and after an extension of time so moved, on June 20, 2016 (ECF No. 36) (“Motion”). Petitioner opposed the motion on July 20, 2016 (ECF No. 37) (“Opp.”), and then Respondent filed a reply on August 3, 2016 (ECF No. 38) (“Reply”). The matter is now ripe for resolution.19 IV. PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE ARGUMENTS

Respondent’s motion argues in the main that Petitioner has not met the first Althen prong because he cannot offer a reliable scientific theo ry linking FluMist to narcolepsy. Motion at 7. In so arguing, Respondent particularly emphasized the findings from Duffy, while attempting to
rebut Dr. Steinman’s criticisms of the study’s reliability. Id. at 7-9. Respondent also proposed that Dr. Steinman’s own theory as to cross- reactivity between nucleoproteins from the flu vaccine and the hypocretin receptors was flawed a nd unreliable, for the reasons discussed above.
Id. at 9-10. And she posited that Petitioner had onl y conclusorily alleged that the second two
Althen prongs were met, without de monstrating real record suppor t that reflected the theory working in real time. Id. at 10-12.

In reaction to the motion, Peti tioner asserted that in fact he has met his burden for a nonTable claim under Althen. The theory proposed for causation is reliable (and was even deemed “superficially plausible” by Respondent’s expert) and supported by evidence such as Han, which suggests an association between even the wild fl u virus and narcolepsy. Opp. at 24-27. Duffy, he maintained, is too empirically flawed as a study, given Dr. Steinm an’s points about its methodologic weaknesses. Id. at 28-30. Otherwise, Petitioner argued that he had met the other
Althen prongs; witness statements place onset in Fe bruary 2012, which is a reasonable timeframe from the date of vaccination for the immunologic process proposed by Dr. Steinman to have
occurred. Id. at 33-35. And Petitioner asserted that his parents’ lack of knowledge about his receipt of FluMist, coupled with their laymen’s unawareness of the possible causal relationship of the vaccine to his narcolepsy, explained wh y treaters had not linked his vaccination to his narcolepsy. Id. at 31-32.

Petitioner also strenuously objected to reso lving this matter without a hearing, arguing that (i) disputed fact issues among the experts required they be allowed to testify live, (ii) testimony from Mr. D’Tiole and his family was also required in order to establish onset (as well
as corroborate the fact that trea ters were not informed of Pe titioner’s vaccination because his parents mistakenly deemed it unimportant), a nd (iii) resolving the matter without a hearing would violate his rights under Vaccine Rule 3(b). Id. at 13-18.

Respondent’s succinct reply repeated her ear lier points for dismissal. Reply at 3-6. Respondent also again proposed that there was no n eed for a hearing, citing the fact that Vaccine Rule 8(d) allows special masters to determine when a hearing is necessary. Id. at 2.

V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Claimant’s Burden in Vaccine Program Cases20 To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program , a petitioner must prove either: (1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an inju ry falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to one of the vaccinations in ques tion within a statutorily prescribed period of time or, in the alternative, (2) that his illnesse s were actually caused by a vaccine (a “Non-Table Injury”). See Sections 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c )(1), and 14(a), as amended by 42 C.F.R. § 100.3; § 11(c)(1)(C)(ii)(I); see also Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 440 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 18 In this case, Petitioner does not assert a Table claim.

For both Table and Non-Table claims, Vaccine Program petitioners bear a “preponderance of the evidence” burd en of proof. Section 13(1)(a). That is, a petitioner must
offer evidence that leads the “trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in fa vor of the party who has the burden to persuade the judge of the fact’s existence.” Moberly , 592 F.3d at 1322 n.2; see also Snowbank Enter. v.
United States , 6 Cl. Ct. 476, 486 (1984) (mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard). Proof of medical certainty is not required. Bunting v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs ., 931 F.2d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In part icular, a petitioner must demonstrate that the vaccine was “not only [the ] but-for cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Moberly , 592 F.3d at 1321 (quoting Shyface v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs ., 165 F.3d 1344, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Human

Servs ., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A petitione r may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely on his assertions; rather, th e petition must be suppor ted by either medical records or by the opinion of a comp etent physician. S ection 13(a)(1).

In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a Non-Table claim (which is the kind of claim assert ed in this matter), a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen : “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (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.

Each of the Althen prongs requires a different showing. Under Althen prong one, petitioners must provide a “reputable medical th eory,” demonstrating that the vaccine received

can cause the type of injury alleged. Pafford , 451 F.3d at 1355-56 (citations omitted). To satisfy

18 Decisions of special masters (some of which I reference in this ruling) constitute persuasive but not binding authority. Hanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 40 Fed. Cl. 625, 630 (1998). By contrast, Federal Circuit rulings concerning legal issues are binding on special masters. Guillory v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 59 Fed. Cl. 121, 124 (2003), aff’d , 104 F. App’x 712 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Spooner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.

, No. 13-159V, 2014 WL 504728, at *7 n.12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 16, 2014).21 this prong, the petitioner’s theory must be based on a “sound and reliable medical or scientific explanation.” Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 35 F.3d 543, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Such a theory must only be “legally probable, not medically or scie ntifically certain.” Id . at 549.

Petitioners may satisfy the first Althen prong without resort to medical literature, epidemiological studies, demonstr ation of a specific mechanism, or a generally accepted medical theory. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 569 F.3d 1367, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Capizzano , 440 F.3d at 1325-26). Special masters, despite their expertise, are not empowered by statute to conclusively resolve what are essentially thorny scientific and medical questions, and thus scientific evidence offered to establish Althen prong one is viewed “not through the lens of the laborator ian, but instead from the vantage point of the Vaccine Act’s preponderant evidence standard.” Id. at 1380. Accordingly, special ma sters must take care not to increase the burden placed on petitioners in offeri ng a scientific theory linking vaccine to injury. Contreras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 121 Fed. Cl. 230, 245 (2015) (“[p]lausibility . . . in many cases may be enough to satisfy Althen prong one” (emphasis in or iginal)). But this does not negate or reduce a petitioner’s ultimate burden to establish his overall entitlement to damages by preponderant evidence. W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 704 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

The second Althen prong requires proof of a logical se quence of cause and effect, usually supported by facts derived from a petitioner’s medical records. Althen , 418 F.3d at 1278; Andreu

, 569 F.3d at 1375-77; Capizzano , 440 F.3d at 1326; Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.

, 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In establishing that a vaccine “did cause” injury, the opinions and views of the inju red party’s treating physicians are entitled to some weight. Andreu

, 569 F.3d at 1367; Capizzano , 440 F.3d at 1326 (“medical records and medical opinion testimony are favored in vaccine cases, as treating physici ans are likely to be in the best position to determine whether a ‘logical sequence of cause a nd effect show[s] that the vaccination was the reason for the injury’”) (quoting Althen , 418 F.3d at 1280). Medical records are generally viewed as particularly trustworthy ev idence, since they are create d contemporaneously with the treatment of the patient. Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

However, medical records and/or statem ents of a treating physician’s views do not per se bind the special master to adopt the conclusions of such an individual, even if they must be considered and carefully evaluated. Section 13(b)(1) (providing that “[a]ny such diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summ ary shall not be binding on the special m aster or court”); Snyder v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.

, 88 Fed. Cl. 706, 746 n.67 (2009) (“there is nothing . . . that mandates that the testimony of a treating physic ian is sacrosanct—that it must be accepted in its entirety and cannot be rebutted”). As with expert testimony offered to establish a theory of causation, the opinions or diagnoses of treating physicia ns are only as trustworthy as22 the reasonableness of their suppositions or bases. Th e views of treating physicians should also be weighed against other, contrary evidence also present in the record – including conflicting opinions among such individuals. Hibbard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 100 Fed. Cl. 742, 749 (2011) (not arbitrary or cap ricious for special master to weigh competing treating physicians’ conclusions against each other), aff'd , 698 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Caves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 100 Fed. Cl. 119, 136 (2011), aff'd , 463 F. App’x 932 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Veryzer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 06-522V, 2011 WL 1935813, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2011), mot. for review den’d, 100 Fed. Cl. 344, 356 (2011), aff’d without opinion , 475 Fed. App’x 765 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

The third Althen prong requires establishing a “proximate temporal relationship” between the vaccination and the injury alleged. Althen , 418 F.3d at 1281. That term has been equated to the phrase “medically-acceptable temporal relationship.” Id. A petitioner must offer “preponderant proof that the onset of symptoms occurred within a timeframe which, given the medical understanding of the disorder’s etiology , it is medically acceptable to infer causation.” Bazan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The explanation for what is a medically acceptable timef rame must also coincide with the theory of how the relevant vaccine can cause an injury ( Althen prong one’s requirement). Id . at 1352; Shapiro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 101 Fed. Cl. 532, 542 (2011), recons. den’d after
remand , 105 Fed. Cl. 353 (2012), aff’d mem. , 2013 WL 1896173 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Koehn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 11-355V, 2013 WL 3214877 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 30, 2013), mot. for review den’d (Fed. Cl. Dec. 3, 2013), aff’d , 773 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

B. Law Governing Factual Determinations

The process for making determinations in Vaccine Program cases regarding factual issues begins with consideration of the medical records. Section 11(c)(2). The special master is required to consider “all [] relevant medical and scientific evidence contained in the record,” including “any diagnosis, conclusion, medical judgment, or autopsy or cor oner’s report which is contained in the record regarding the na ture, causation, and aggravation of the petitioner’s illness, disability, injury, condition, or deat h,” as well as “the re sults of any diagnostic or evaluative test
which are contained in the record and the summa ries and conclusions.” Section 13(b)(1)(A). The special master is then required to weigh th e evidence presented, in cluding contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (it is within the special mast e r’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous medical reco rds than to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that wa s given at a later date, provided that such a determination is evidenced by a rational determination).

Medical records that are created contemporan eously with the events they describe are presumed to be accurate and “complete” (i.e., pr esenting all relevant in formation on a patient’s23 health problems). Cucuras , 993 F.2d at 1528; Doe/70 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 95 Fed. Cl. 598, 608 (2010) (“[g]iven the inconsiste ncies between petitioner’s testimony and his contemporaneous medical records, the special master’s decision to rely on petitioner’s medical
records was rational and consiste nt with applicable law”), aff’d

, Rickett v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs ., 468 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-pr ecedential opinion). This presumption is based on the linked propositions that (i) sick people visit me dical professionals; (ii) sick people honestly report their h ealth problems to those prof essionals; and (iii) medical professionals record what they are told or observe when examining their patients in as accurate a manner as possible, so that they are aware of e nough relevant facts to make appropriate treatment
decisions. Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., No. 11-685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013); Cucuras v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs ., 26 Cl. Ct. 537, 543 (1992), aff’d , 993 F.2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[i]t strain s reason to conclude that petitioners would fail to accurately report th e onset of their daughter’s sympto ms. It is equally unlikely that pediatric neurologists, who are trained in taking medical hist ories concerning the onset of neurologically significant sympto ms, would consistently but e rroneously report the onset of seizures a week after they in fact occurred”).

Accordingly, if the medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, then they should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., No. 03-1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). Indeed, contemporaneously medical records are generally found to be deserving of greater evidentiary weight th an oral testimony – especially where such testimony conf licts with the record evidence. Cucuras , 993 F.2d at 1528;
see also Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.

, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd

, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir.), cert. den’d, Murphy v. Sullivan

, 506 U.S. 974 (1992) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 396 (1947) (“[i]t has generally been held that oral testimony which is in conf lict with contemporaneous documents is entitled to li ttle evidentiary weight.”)).

However, there are situations in whic h compelling oral testimony may be more persuasive than written records, such as wh ere records are deemed to be incomplete or
inaccurate. Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779 (2006) (“like any norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule should not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for its application are weak or lacking”); Lowrie

, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19 (“[w]ritten records which ar e, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those whic h are internally consistent”) (quoting Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs. , 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam , 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Ultimately, a determination regarding a witness’s credibility is needed when determining the weight that such testimony should be afforded. Andreu , 569 F.3d at 1379; Bradley v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs. , 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).24 When witness testimony is offered to overc ome the presumption of accuracy afforded to contemporaneous medical records, such testim ony must be “consistent , clear, cogent, and compelling.” Sanchez , 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human

Servs

., No. 90-2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). In determining the accuracy and completeness of medi cal records, the Court of Federal Claims has listed four possible explanations for inconsiste ncies between contemporaneously created medical records and later testimony: (1) a person’s failu re to recount to the medical professional everything that happened during th e relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s fa ulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s pu rposeful recounting of symptoms that did not
exist. La Londe v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs ., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), aff’d , 746 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In making a determina tion regarding whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous medical records over contrary testimony, there must be evidence that
this decision was the result of a rational determination. Burns , 3 F.3d at 417.

C. Analysis of Expert Testimony

Establishing a sound and reliable medical th eory often requires a petitioner to present expert testimony in support of his claim. Lampe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 219 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Vaccine Program expert testimony is usually evaluated according to the factors for analyzing scientific reliability set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm

. , Inc

., 509 U.S. 579, 594-96 (1993). See Cedillo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.

, 617 F.3d 1328, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Terran v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 195 F.3d 1302, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “The Daubert factors for analyzing the reliabil ity of testimony are: (1) whether a theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) wh ether there is a known or potential rate of error and whether there are standards for controlling the error; and (4) whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant scientific community.” Terran , 195 F.3d at 1316 n.2 (citing Daubert , 509 U.S. at 592-95).

The Daubert factors play a slightly different role in Vaccine Program cases than they do when applied in other federal judicial fora (such as the district courts). Daubert factors are usually employed by judges (in the performance of their evidentiary gatekeeper roles) to exclude
evidence that is unreliable and/or could confus e a jury. In Vaccine Program cases, by contrast,
these factors are used in the weighing of the reliability of scientific evidence proffered. Davis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 94 Fed. Cl. 53, 66-67 (2010) (“uni quely in this Circuit, the
Daubert factors have been em ployed also as an accep table evidentiary-gauging tool with respect to persuasiveness of expert testimony alr eady admitted”). The flexible use of the Daubert factors to evaluate the persuasiveness and reliability of expert tes timony has routinely been upheld. See,

e.g. , Snyder

, 88 Fed. Cl. at 742-45. In this matter (as in numerous other Vaccine Program cases),25 Daubert has not been employed at the threshold, to determine what evidence should be admitted, but instead to determine whether expert testim ony offered is reliable and/or persuasive.

Respondent frequently offers one or more experts of her own in order to rebut a petitioner’s case. Where both sides offer expert testimony, a special master’s decision may be “based on the credibility of the experts and the relative persuasiveness of their competing
theories.” Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 618 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Lampe , 219 F.3d at 1362). However, nothing requires the acceptance of an expert’s conclusion “connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert,” espe cially if “there is simply too great an analytical gap betw een the data and the opinion proffered.” Snyder , 88 Fed. Cl. at 743 (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner , 522 U.S. 146 (1997)); see also Isaac v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs. , No. 08-601V, 2012 WL 3609993, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2012), mot. for review den’d , 108 Fed. Cl. 743 (2013), aff’d , 540 Fed. App’x 999 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Cedillo , 617 F.3d at 1339).

D. Consideration of Medical Literature

Petitioner’s expert filed some medical and scientific literature in this case, including articles offered in suppor t of his causation theories. See generally Pet’r’s Exs. 21 and 24-30. I
have reviewed all of the medical literature s ubmitted in this case, although my decision does not
discuss each filed article in detail. Moriarty v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 2015-5072, 2016 WL 1358616, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2016) (“[w]e generally presume that a special master
considered the relevant record evidence even though he does not explicitly reference such evidence in his decision”) (citation omitted). Petit ioner in fact filed 55 articles, making a detailed written examination of every single one an ardu ous task. A write-up or summary of each within the body of this decision is not called for, how ever, in explaining my disposition of Petitioner’s claim, although the items most significant to my determination, or to Petitioner’s case, are
discussed.

E. Determination to Resolve Case Without Hearing

Here, I have opted to decide entitlement based on written submissions and evidentiary filings, including the seven expert repor ts collectively filed by the parties. The Vaccine Act and Rules not only contemplate but en courage special masters to decide petitions on the papers rather than via evidentiary hearing, wher e (in the exercise of their disc retion) they conclude that the former means of adjudication wi ll properly and fairly resolve the case. Section 12(d)(2)(D); Vaccine Rule 8(d). The choice to do so has been affirmed on appeal. See Hooker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02-472V, 2016 WL 3456435, at *21 n.19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 19, 2016) (citing numerous ca ses where special masters decide d on the papers in lieu of hearing and that decision was upheld). I am si mply not required to hold a hearing in every matter, no matter the preferences of the parties. Hovey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3826 Fed. Cl. 397, 402-03 (1997) (special master acted w ithin his discretion in denying evidentiary hearing); Burns, 3 F.3d at 417; Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 71500, at *2 (Ct. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 1991).

ANALYSIS

After careful review of the expert reports, medical records, and the arguments of both sides, I conclude that Petitioner has not establishe d preponderant evidence in favor of his claim.

A. Petitioner Has Not Establishe d a Reliable Causation Theory.

The central weakness in Petitioner’s case is hi s causation theory, offered in support of the
first Althen prong. This determination does not turn on in sufficiencies in expe rt credentials or credibility, but rather on fundame ntal holes in the theory itself , as evidenced by the reports and responsive statements made therein by each side’s ex perts, as well as key literature offered to bulwark the theory. Petitioner has, in effect, attemp ted to leverage a theory that is reliable with respect to one form of the flu vaccine into a ca se involving a different form, but without showing that the theory is similarly reli able in the different setting.

Petitioner relies on Dr. Steinman’s opinion th at the H1N1 component in the FluMist form of the flu vaccine has the potential to interact (via the mechanism of molecular mimicry) with the hypocretin receptors in the brain. Important aspects of the theory are scientif ically reliable. Thus, deficiencies in the hypocretin-mediated neurotra nsmission process have been persuasively linked to narcolepsy. See, e.g. , Nishino at 1; Peyron at 1; Ahmed II at 2. Similarly, there is plausible research (although, by Dr. Steinman’s admission, it remains incomplete) suggesting that narcolepsy is likely an autoimmune-mediated c ondition. There is also reliable epidemiologic evidence linking Pandemrix in Europe to narcolepsy, and studies offered by Petitioner – in particular, the Ahmed articles co -authored by Dr. Steinman – refine the nature of the linkage further, concluding that the ad juvant contained in Pandemrix can probably be eliminated as a primary causal factor. This pla ces the focus on the nucleoprotein s in the H1N1 component, and the evidence that nucleoprotein antibodies are found in higher amount s in patients with narcolepsy who also received Pandemr ix or a similar inactive flu vaccine. 19

I do not dispute Dr. Steinman’s qualifications or credibility on these matters. Dr. Steinman is often called upon in Program cases to testify about molecular mimicry as the agent
for autoimmune and other conditions – and for good reason, given his ample expertise in studying the topic as it pertai ns to multiple sclerosis. See Pet’r’s Ex. 62 at 2-3, 8-42 (listing all of

19 I acknowledge Respondent’s arguments about limits to the reliability of Ahmed II – given, for example, its limited sample size – but I need not evaluate whether it is sufficiently scientifically reliable in the first instance to find as I do, given the larger problem of extra polating Ahmed II’s results to a differen t form of the vaccine that has never been reliably associat ed with narcolepsy.27 the literature Dr. Steinman has published on mu ltiple sclerosis). Here, Dr. Steinman has coauthored two articles that directly pertain to the illness in dispute. He is a particularly apt expert
for this case.

Nevertheless, Petitioner’s theory has a central reliability problem. Petitioner proposes that because Pandemrix has been credibly associated with narcolepsy, it is equally plausible that the
FluMist formulation – an LAIV – of the vaccin e would do the same, merely because it also contains the H1N1 wild virus strain. By Petitioner’s admission, there is no direct evidence of this contention (although that fact does not mean the claim could not succeed, given the acceptance in the Program of the notion that vaccine injuries are rare and otherwise need not be proven with scientific certainty). See, e.g., First Steinman Rep. at 21 (“I want to emphasize that there is no epidemiologic information linking FluMist to narc olepsy”). But the indirect evidence Petitioner relies upon does not adequately f ill the gap. On the contrary – the Ahmed articles themselves undercut Petitioner’s attempts to apply their findings to the present circumstances.

Both Ahmed articles explicitly acknowledge that the form of manufacture of the inactive flu vaccines (and specifically how manufacture caus ed a higher production of the nucleoprotein antigens believed to give rise to the antibodies that interfere w ith the hypocretin receptors) likely had something to do with the narcolepsy associ ation. Thus, Pandemrix (strongly associated with narcolepsy) was not manufactured in the same ma nner as Focetria. Ahmed II at 1. At the same time, individuals whose antibody levels were test ed in Ahmed II who had received Focetria had close to zero nucleoprote in antibodies – and Focetria was thus not associated with narcolepsy, likely because the cross-reactivity necessary to interfere with the hypocretin receptors could not occur. Ahmed II at 5 (“the trace amounts of [nucle oprotein] in Focetria w ould not elicit durable NP antibody responses necessary for subsequent cross-reactivity to H CRT receptor 2”), 7. Ahmed I and II thus stand for the proposition that something about the process of inactivating the viral strain in manufacturing that form of the flu vaccine is associated with increasing the
number of nucleotide antibodies – not that the me re presence of H1N1 proteins in any form, and in any version of the flu vaccine, will inevitably result in sufficient levels of the antibodies to produce the same cross-react ive autoimmune process. Th e research explicitly does not state that, given its findings regarding concentrations of nucleoprotein antibodies in individuals who
received Focetria.

This case, by contrast, involve s a different form of the vaccine, subject to a wholly different manufacturing process in which the flu strain is live but attenuated. Other than also being an H1N1 strain, Petitioner has not sh own why, or how, the LA IV version would be comparable to Pandemrix – or even Focetria, fo r that matter – in increasing the nucleoprotein
antibodies. 20 Ahmed I for its part recognizes this as well – and, in particular, that an LAIV’s viral

20 Indeed, Respondent’s experts, such as Dr. Kohrman, have persuasively demonstrated that the H1N1 strain used to manufacture FluMist may also be too different from the form studied in Ahmed II. Second Kohrman Rep. at 2-5.28 elements are less likely to cross-react via th e process of molecular mimicry (the mechanism proposed in this case for the autoimmune reacti on) in comparison to how Pandemrix would, given its production of the nucleop rotein antibodies identified in Dr. Steinman’s research at
sufficient levels to interfere w ith the body’s hypocretin receptors. Ahmed I at 5, Ahmed II at 4-5. Indeed, Dr. Steinman’s research acknowledges that even forms of the flu vaccine (Focetria) more comparable to the version studied (Pandemrix) we re not associated with narcolepsy. Ahmed II at 1 (“[c]urrently, no increased risk has been reported for the MF59-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine (Focetria), for which an estimated 6.5 m illion doses were distributed in EU/EEA, and 25 million doses were used in Europe and Latin Am erica”). Accordingly, even if Dr. Steinman’s
research as reflected in Ahmed I and II is reliable, it has not been shown to be similarly reliable when applied to FluMist.

Another reliability deficiency with Petitione r’s theory stems from the molecular mimicry mechanism that Petitioner proposes would cause the production of the nucleoprotein antibodies. It is well understood in the Vaccine Program th at petitioners are not obligated to prove the mechanism posited as a component of their causation theory. Knudsen v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 548-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Yet here, the proposed mechanism – that the fact that FluMist includes an H1NI viral strain from which the cross-reactivity necessary to produce the hypocretin receptor-interfering antibodies would emanate – is directly undercut by Dr. Steinman’s own literature. FluMist, because it is an LAIV, may inherent ly be less likely to generate the cross-reactive molecular mimicry th at Dr. Steinman posits would be the mechanism causing the autoimmune interference with the hypocretin receptors. See Ahmed I at 5.

Petitioner attempted to close such gaps in his causation theory, but failed to do so persuasively, with his arguments consistently rebutted by evidence Respondent offered. First, Dr. Steinman argued in his reports that the wild H1N1 virus was in f act associated with narcolepsy (thus allowing for the conclusion that any vaccin e containing the strain would also have the potential to cause narcolepsy). In support of this argument, he pointed to Han, which as noted
above observed an association between the wild H1N1 virus in China and narcolepsy. As Respondent countered, however, there are facial di fficulties with giving this particular study too much weight. First Kohrman Rep. at 10. Indee d, the Ahmed articles themselves noted the potential limitations of Han. See, e.g., Ahmed II at 6 (observing that “studies outside China have not reported an increase in narcolepsy cases in unvaccinated subjects,” and proposing that the high residential density of Beijing might simp ly have made the studied residents more susceptible to the flu generally). Thus, as r ecognized in Ahmed II, research regarding the Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy outbreak in Eur ope did not associate the wild virus with the
condition either. Partinen II at 7. While it has not been shown herein that Han’s findings are unreliable, its findings are too inconclusive generally to give them the weight urged by
Petitioner.29 Second, as Respondent pointed out, the Duffy epidemiologic study stood as very strong evidence rebutting an a ssociation between an LAIV containi ng the H1N1 strain and narcolepsy. As a general matter, it is true that Program pe titioners need not offer ep idemiologic evidence to
establish their causation burden under Althen . Indeed, because vaccine injuries are rare events, the fact that a particular epidemiologic study suggests a vaccine is ge nerally safe should not prevent a claimant from prevailing (assuming the other Althen factors are met). See Harris v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 10-322V, 2014 WL 3159377, at *11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 10, 2014) (epidemiologic studies cannot absolute ly refute causal connections, because it is possible that a larger study could al ways detect an increased risk).

But this does not mean that epidemiologic ev idence relevant to a vaccine at issue in a case has no place in evaluating a claim – especially when the evidence is particularly on point and persuasive. See, e.g., Godfrey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-565V, 2014 WL 3058353, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 11, 2014) (“this is not a case where epidemiologic evidence is lacking. The epidemiology exists , and is not supportive of the theory”), mot. for
review den’d , No. 10-565V, slip op. (Apr. 29, 2016). To the contrary – in a case like the present, where a vaccine’s formulation bears heavily on Petitioner’s causation claim, and where Petitioner wants to leverage findings about a different vaccine form ulation, epidemiologic
evidence relevant to the version of the vacci ne in dispute ought to be weighed against Petitioner’s proof in evaluating whethe r he has carried his overall burden. See W.C. , 704 F.3d at 1361 (special master was not ar bitrary in denying compensati on, and noting that the special master properly relied on several epidemio logical studies in reaching his decision); Lampe , 219 F.3d at 1365 (stating “[a]n epidemio logical study may be probative me dical evidence relevant to a causation determination”); see also C.K. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 113 Fed. Cl. 757, 770 (2013) (a special master may evaluate contradictory evidence offered by Respondent).

Duffy involved a study of 650,995 vaccinated individuals in the 2009-10 flu season, but
found no instances in which a child receiving the LAIV formulation of the flu vaccine developed narcolepsy in 180 days from vaccination – far fe wer instances than the incidence rate would predict. Duffy at 2. In the 2010-11 season, only two cases were reported out of 870,530
individuals. Id. at 2-3. And of the 45,246 individuals between the ages of 10 and 19 who received an LAIV, none developed narcolepsy despite an inciden ce rate of 3.84 per 100,000 individuals (meaning .83 cases of narcolepsy would have been expected). Petitioner unconvincingly quibbles with aspect s of Duffy. He argues that it has not been shown that the
form of FluMist administered to him in 2011 was the same as that in the study, which involved the 2010-11 version – even though in fact it appears, based on th e available unrebutted evidence,
that the formulation was the same. Pet’r’s Exs. 72 and 73; Third Steinman Rep. at 18 (stating that
the 2010-11 and 2011-12 influenza vaccine requirements were the sam e).30 Dr. Steinman also proposes that the incidence rate is unreliable and/or underpowered given how low it was. Yet (as Dr. MacGinnitie obse rved) the Duffy authors specifically took this fact into account, noting that even if it were increased ten-fold the result would be the same, with far fewer cases of actual narcolepsy occurring th an what would be reasonably expected in the studied population. 21 An incidence rate is defined as the number of cases of a disease that develop during a specified period of time divided by the number of subjects in a study. Michael D. Green et al., Reference Guide on Epidemiology, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 549, 567 (Federal Judicial Center, 3d ed. 2011) (“ Green”). Epidemiologic studies can be limited in their ability to detect increased incidence rates of rare diseases, such as narcolepsy. Harris, 2014 WL 3159377, at *10. However, the predictive strength of an incide nce rate is di rectly tied to the “power” of an epidemiologic study, which is in turn dependent on the sample size. See Green at 576, 582 (defining power as “the probability of finding a statistically significant association... (if it exists) in light of the sample sizes used”) (citing Proctor & Gamble Pharms., Inc. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. , No. 06 Civ. 0034(PAC), 2006 WL 2588002, at *6 n.16 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2006) (“the sa mple size of a well-designed randomized clinical is large enough to ensure a high . . . power of detecting a clinically important ov erall difference between two treatment groups”)). A study with a greater sa mple size, and therefore sufficient statistical power, can more persuasively s upport a determination as to whether a causal link exists. See

Green at 582.

Here, Duffy’s sample size was generally large enough to render its incidence rate projections reliable, despite Dr. St einman’s claims to the contrary. 22 Thus, from a scientific standpoint – and from applying the Daubert criteria that govern reliab ility determinations in Program cases – I find that Duffy contradicts Pe titioner’s argument about the likelihood that the
FluMist form of the vaccine c ould cause narcolepsy, given the failure of observed, real-world instances to rise anywhere close to the expected incidence rate. Daubert

, 43 F.3d at 1321 (citing DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc ., 911 F.2d 941, 958 (3rd Cir. 1990)) (“[f]or an epidemiological study to show causation under a pre ponderance standard, ‘the relative risk of ... [the defect or injury] arising from the epidemio logical data . . . will, at a minimum, have to exceed ‘2’”).

21 Dr. Steinman further argues that the lo w incidence rate could be attributable to the fact that those with the genetic defect giving them a propensity to develop narcolepsy, like Mr. D’Tiole, are less common in the United States than abroad, where the Pandemrix /inactivated form of vaccine has been sh own to be linked to the condition. Third Steinman Rep. at 9-10. But Dr. MacGinnitie persuasively established that incidence would also be affected by population size, rather than just the prevalence of the genetic allele. Second MacGinnitie Rep. at 2. Because the United States’ population is much larger than both Finland and Sweden, the study would have likely shown more cases of narcolepsy if a link did in fact exist.

22 There is also some irony in Dr. Stei nman’s objection that Duffy was underpowered, and hence unreliable – since his own research from Ahmed II, so heavily relied upon by Petitioner to establish a relationship between the flu vaccine and narcolepsy based upon the pr esence of nucleoprotein autoantibodies, involved only 20 individuals

.31 The basis for my determination herein to give Duffy more weight than Petitioner urges can also be understood by reiter ation of a prior point. In this case, to the extent any flu vaccine has been associated with narcolepsy, that asso ciation is the result of epidemiologic evidence involving Pandemrix only. Dr. Steinman’s own literature, especially Ahmed I and II, only underscored the extent to which questions abou t formulation likely matter. And Petitioner has heavily relied on other epidemiologic evidence involving the wild virus, like Han. Given the backdrop, epidemiologic evidence i nvolving the specific vaccine form ulation at issue in this case becomes especially relevant – and the conclusi ons of such evidence therefore become more probative. 23

I again acknowledge that components of Petitioner’s theory in this case have reliable foundations, even if some of the research relie d upon remains preliminary, as Dr. Steinman has admitted. Petitioner’s theory could well become more reliable once th ere is stronger proof linking the LAIV form of the H1 N1 flu vaccine, or better and more consistent evidence linking the H1N1 wild virus alone, to narcolepsy. Studies measuring the nucleoprotein antibody levels in
individuals vaccinated with FluMist would also be usef ul in supporting the theory. See Ahmed II at 8 (noting that these kind of findings would constitute a step towa rd understanding vaccineassociated narcolepsy, and therefore future studies would be beneficial to further understand the mechanism linking narcolepsy and the flu vaccine ). At present, however, Dr. Steinman’s own research suggests that the theory he proposes applies only to a form of the flu vaccine not at issue
in this case. It therefore lacks sufficient re liability in this context to carry Petitioner’s Althen prong one burden.

Petitioner and his expert protest that the V accine Act’s evidentiary requirements do not demand scientific exactitude, and thus for me to find the first pr ong has not been satisfied is to unfairly increase hi s burden of proof. See, e.g., Opp. at 24-25, Second Steinman Rep. at 8. But I have not done so in my analysis. For, even if a petitioner need only demonstrate a “plausible” theory, the scientific evidence offe red to meet that standard must itself be reliable, based on the same standards that would appl y to it outside the courtroom. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999) ( Daubert factors exist “to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon prof essional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field”).

Thus, although the Vaccine Act does not requ ire a petitioner to prove with scientific certainty that his theory is plausible (and sp ecial masters make legal determinations about

23 Indeed, in this case Petitioner has arguably put epid emiologic evidence directly into contention. Where a petitioner relies on such evidence to sugges t a vaccine likely could cause a partic ular disease or condition, then he must also persuasively explain or rebut contrary evid ence – he cannot simply take refuge behind the general proposition that Vaccine Act claimants n eed not usually offer such evidence.32 evidentiary weight – not scientific determinations), it does require a chain of reliable propositions supporting petitioner’s theory – and he re important links in the chain are missing. It is simply too great of a leap for me to concl ude that, because one form of the flu vaccine may plausibly cause narcolepsy due to manufacturing differences that promote an excess of certain antigens that could theoretically provoke an auto immune reaction, a significantly different form of the vaccine would necessarily have the same effect in the United States – especially given reliable epidemiologic evidence to the contrary, as well as ad missions found in Petitioner’s own
scientific evidence.

B. The Other Althen Elements Have Not Been Met

Although my decision turns on Petitioner’s inab ility to offer a persuasive and reliable theory of causation, I also find that the other Althen prongs have not been met, for reasons somewhat independent of the above analysis.

First, the “did cause,” second Althen prong has not been met with preponderant evidence.
Mr. D’Tiole cannot establish that he in fact experien ced an autoimmune process, in the manner outlined by Dr. Steinman’s theory, culminating in his narcolepsy. The record lacks direct 24 or indirect evidence of the existen ce of an autoimmune post-vaccination reaction, reflected by some other test result or symptom. What is left is the fact that (crediting Ms. DePlush’s statements) Petitioner began to experience some narcolepsy symptoms after his February 2012 surgical procedure, and then additional symptoms several months later, with nothing in the intervening period to suggest any progression or continuation of symptoms . This does not constitute a coherent, logical sequence of cause and effect that could persuasively be related to his December 2011 vaccination. Dr. Steinman largely appears to a ssume that the fact that narcolepsy followed vaccination is proof enough of a relationship – an assumption the Program soundly rejects. See,

e.g. , Moberly , 592 F.3d at 1323 (“neither a mere showing of a proximate temporal relationship
between vaccination and in jury, nor a simplistic elimination of other potential causes of the injury suffices, without more, to meet the burden of showin g actual causation”); Grant , 956 F.2d

at 1148.

Second (and with respect to the third Althen prong), Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed timeframe in wh ich he would be expect ed to expe rience the autoimmune process interfering with his hypocretin production, and resulting in narcolepsy, was medically reasonable. It is true that Dr. Steinman’s theory propos es a timeframe that is fairly long, and which has some reliable basis. Working from the Pandemrix literature, plus Han, Dr.

24 Thus, there is no evidence that Petitioner had any of the H1N1-derived nucleoprotein antibodies that would theoretically interact with his hypocretin production – although I acknowledge that this evidentiary omission does not deserve significant weight, since it is not likely any of Mr. D’Tiole’s treaters would have even thought to look for the presence of these antibodies in the first place.33 Steinman posits that the autoim mune reaction could take seve ral months to develop, since narcolepsy is itself usually diagnosed in such a time lag after vaccination or likely infection date. First Steinman Rep. at 17, 19. Given that Petiti oner experienced his symptoms no sooner than about seven to eight weeks from his receipt of FluMist, and no later th an April 2012 (which the medical records suggest, based on the first time he mentioned his symp toms to a treater), Petitioner’s reported onset is well within that timeframe. 25

However, the medical records are inconsis tent on the scope or progression of these symptoms in the ten months af ter Mr. D’Tiole received the v accine. Thus, although there is
evidence of onset in the late winter of 2012, the records from Petitioner’s neurologic and epilepsy consult in October 2012 make little men tion of sleep problems as Petitioner’s primary concern, and do not themselves corroborate the ea rlier records. And, as no ted above, there is zero
record evidence that evinces the existence of an autoimmune process occurring in the seven
months after vaccine administra tion. It is ther efore impossible to conclude that the proposed timeframe actually played out as would be expected. Dr. Steinm an has also not offered an explanation for why an individua l’s narcolepsy would take such a stuttering, up and down course under his theory, with the mol ecular mimicry mechanism he pos its beginning at the time of vaccination but thereafter taking over nine months to develop, with many subsequent lulls. 26

C. A Hearing Was Not Necessa ry to Resolve this Case

In deciding as I do, I am declining Petiti oner’s request that I conduct a hearing. The
choice of how best to resolve this case is a matter that lies generally with my discretion, but given Petitioner’s protestations I shall explain my reasoning.

A hearing usually provides a petitioner w ith the opportunity to put on live testimony, which aids the special master most in cases where w itness credibility is at i ssue, or where there is a need to pose questions to a witness in order to obtain information not c ontained in, or not selfevident from, the existing filings. See, e.g.

, Hooker

, 2016 WL 3456435, at *21 (discussing a

25 It should be noted that the literature discusses this timeframe in relation to diagnosis of narcolepsy, not onset – and thus suggests that onset would be sooner. See S. Nevsimalova, Narcolepsy in Childhood , 2009 Sleep Medicine Reviews 13, at 2 (Pet’r’s Ex. 35) (ECF No. 11-8).

26 For added background in evaluating whether the timing of onset in this case was medically acceptable, it is instructive to compare this case with the only other reas oned decision of which I am aware addressing the propensity of some forms of the flu vaccine to cause narcolepsy, Garrison v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., No. 14-762V, 2015 WL 7424016 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 29, 2015). The petitioner in Garrison received the flu vaccine in November 2011, and (as medical records plainly establishe d) began experiencing sleepiness and related symptoms within a week or two. By May 2012, she was diagnosed with narcolepsy. Garrison , 2015 WL 7424016, at *1-2. Temporally this onset is far closer to the vaccine’s admi nistration than in the present case, where (even if I accept Petitioner’s assertions about onset occurring in February 2 012) there is a two-month lag, followed by a fluctuating course of symptoms over the next six months. Moreover, the medical records in this case are inconsistent on onset, with some suggesting Mr. D’Tiole’s narcolepsy did not begin until March or April 2012.34 special master’s discretion in holding a hearing and the factors that weighed against holding a hearing in this matter); Murphy , 1991 WL 71500, at *2 (n o justification for a hearing where the claim is fully developed in the written records a nd the special master does not need to observe the fact witnesses for the pur pose of assessing credibility). It may also, in certain circumstances, permit a claimant to expand upon or illuminate po ints already set forth in paper filings, or respond to unanticipated questions raised in th e matter – but again, only where necessary to
reach a decision.

In this case, live witness tes timony was not required in orde r for me to reach a reasoned decision, which did not turn on a credibility dete rmination. The largest w eakness in Petitioner’s case is his causation theory as proposed by Dr. Stei nman. Dr. Steinman’s credibility on the topic at hand was established by his repo rts, burnished by his reputation a nd credentials (given that he frequently appears in Progr am cases as an expert). 27 Indeed, it is evident that both sides have offered expert opinions from individuals with the necessary b ackgrounds and experience to give them. Thus, I need not hear Dr. Steinman (or any expert for that matter in this case) “live” to weigh his theory, since personall y evaluating his candor was not re quired for me to decide the

case.

I further note that Petitioner had sufficien t opportunity to pres ent his arguments, along with supportive expert testimony. Petitioner offered three reports from Dr. Steinman, providing ample elaboration of his views as well as re acting to the critique s lobbed by Respondent’s experts in their own reports. Th e timing of the filing of these reports illuminates the numerous opportunities Petitioner had to bulwark his theories in light of Re spondent’s challenges, and thus the extent to which he has had a “full and fair” opportunity to make his case. Thus, Dr. Steinman’s first report was file d less than one month after the case’s initiation in early 2015, with the second (responding to th e points raised by Dr. Kohrman) filed in September of that same year. The third supplementa l report (which, at 23 pages, wa s nearly as long as the first report) followed Dr. Kohrman’s supplemental repor t and Dr. MacGinnitie’s first report, both of which were filed in early 2016.

In addition, I note that the parties’ expert s thoroughly addressed the issues relevant to causation in their reports, allowing me to discer n the problems with Petitioner’s theory that I
have identified above without need ing to question any expert direc tly about a topic that had only occurred to me. Respondent’s experts squarely cha llenged in their reports the extent to which the Ahmed I and II findings about Pandemrix applied to FluMist. See, e.g., First MacGinnitie Rep. at 9 (“Flumist and Pandemrix are very different vaccines administered by different routes and causing distinct immune responses,” and “narcole psy has only been associ ated with a specific

27 I also note that I have personally heard Dr. Steinman tes tify several times in different Program cases, and thus had repeated opportunities to observe him and weigh his personal credibility. While I have not always found his opinion persuasive with respect to a given claim, I ha ve never doubted his comp etency or expertise.35 type of subunit vaccin e”). In turn, Petitioner and his expert were cl early made aware of Respondent’s arguments, and Dr. Steinman end eavored in his two supplemental reports to
answer and rebut all of them. I had no additional questions to pose to Dr. Steinman that he had not already answered, or had been given the opportunity to answer. 28

I similarly did not need to hear directly from Petitioner or his family members. There are many cases where witness testimony about the nature of a symptom or its onset is critical to determining a fact issue. See, e.g.

, Rich v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , No. 12-742V, 2015 WL 5882324 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 16, 2016) (fact hearing required witness testimony to determine onset of petitioner’s ADEM symptoms); Reddy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs

., No. 13-208V, 2015 WL 5578610 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mst r. Aug. 26, 2015) (determining onset of symptoms through witness testimony at fact heari ng to resolve whether cl aim was timely filed); Bray v. Sec’y of He alth & Human Servs. , No. 10-207V, 2014 WL 5025173 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 16, 2014) (case required witness testimony to determine if petitioner received the flu vaccine). In such instances, it is necessary to evaluate the witness’s demeanor live in order to determine how much weight to give a factual allegation. But here, I can dispense with live testimony – and even credit all of the witness testimony as set forth in written declarations as
true – but still reach the same conclusion.

For example, Petitioner argues that fact witnes ses in this case would attempt to establish that onset of petitioner’s narcol epsy occurred around the time of his operation in February 2012. Opp. at 18. Some of this testimony would be in opposition to medical records – for example, those records where Petitioner or his family pr oposed a somewhat later onset. But even if I simply accept as true Petitioner’ s assertion that onset began around the time of his February 2012 surgical procedure, my finding that Petit ioner has not demonstrated that FluMist could cause narcolepsy remains. Finding in favor of Petit ioner on the onset issues after hearing such testimony would not cause him to prevail.

Petitioner also proposes that some of his na rcolepsy treaters might have identified the FluMist vaccine as a trigger for his narcolepsy had they been aware that he received it, thus strengthening his call for live testimony about onset. Opp. at 17-18. While treater views are important in Program cases, however, the assump tion that a treater would have offered support for FluMist’s causal role is speculative. Moreover, the particular treater identified, Dr. Mignot, 29 was known to Petitioner and could easily have been contacted (whether in the course of this

28 Importantly, six months passed from the date of Dr. Stei nman’s third expert report and Petitioner’s brief filed in opposition to Respondent’s motion – giving him even more time, had he so chosen, to file additional statements from Dr. Steinman (or other experts) on the issues in contention.

29 Notably, this is the same Dr. Mignot whose research findings on a component of Dr. Steinman’s overall theory about autoantibodies blocking hypocretin receptors could not be replicated – a failure that Dr. Steinman opted to characterize as fraudulent in nature . Third Steinman Rep. at 1-5.36 matter or in briefing the motion to dismiss) a nd asked to make a supporting declaration based on
the known fact that Mr. D’Tiole receive d the FluMist vaccine, but was not. 30 Dr. Mignot has offered opinions about the propensity of the flu vaccine to cause narcolepsy before in other cases, and his unavailability here in has not been established. See, e.g., Garrison , 2015 WL 7424016, at *7. 31 In any event, I need not accept a treater opinion, or give it the weight urged by a claimant, that itself is not reliable or founded on reliable evidence – and because Dr. Steinman’s opinion has not been found to be reliabl e when applied to FluMist, the fact that a treater might espouse the same theory would not alter my conclusion. Synder, 88 Fed. Cl. at 746

n.67.

This point underscores another reason fo r forgoing a hearing. As noted above, the deficiency in Petitioner’s causation theory was discernible from review of the expert reports alone. Dr. Steinman proposed that the presence of the H1N1 wild virus component in FluMist would likely have the same impact as that compone nt contained in different form of vaccine. But the very studies he helped author, and that he cites in support of his theory, themselves point to a contrary conclusion: that it was the manner in which the H1N1 component s were affected by inactivation, rather than the mere inclusion of the flu virus in any vaccine, that played the primary role in causing narcolepsy. My conclusions about the deficiencies in Petitioner’s theory
were derived from close consideration of the parties’ competing reports and their supporting literature, and did not require me to question them (any mo re than I would be obligated to question them at hearing).

Petitioner insists that the mere fact that his expert embraces an opinion in opposition to the Respondent’s experts means that there exist “genuine issues of fact that must be fleshed out further with witness testimony.” Opp. at 15. But th is misconstrues the factors I am to weigh in deciding when a hearing is requi red. Prior decisions have recogni zed that a special master’s discretion in deciding whether to conduct an evid entiary hearing “is tempered by Vaccine Rule 3(b),” or the duty to “afford[] each party a full and fair opportunity to present its case.” Hovey

, 38 Fed. Cl. at 400-01, citing Rule 3(b). But the rule also incl udes the obligation of creation of a
record “sufficient to al low review of the speci al master’s decision.” Id. Thus, the fact that a claim is legitimately disputed, such that the special ma ster must exercise his intellectual faculties in

30 Dr. Mignot began treating Petitioner in 2014. This matter was filed in 2015, but Petitioner only offered expert support for his claim from Dr. Steinman. I did not indicate my intent to permit Respondent to make a motion for a ruling on the record until March 2016. Petitioner subsequently filed his opposition to Respondent’s motion on July 20, 2016 (ECF No. 37). No reason has been provided why Dr. Mignot could not have been, or was not, asked to provide support for Petitioner’s argument herein at any time in 2015 or this year.

31 Garrison was decided in favor of the petitioner, but in circumstances in which Respondent did not offer her own expert, and opted instead simply to request a ruling on the record based upon the petitioner’s submissions. Garrison

, 2015 WL 7424016, at *1 (Respondent filed only a Rule 4(c) Report requesting a ruling on the record). Accordingly, the special master’s determination was based mainly on whether the petitioner had offered sufficient proof to meet the Althen prongs, without confronting the issues herein.37 order to decide a matter, is not itself grounds for a trial (for if it were, tr ials would be required in every disputed case).

Rather, the standard is whether Petitioner ha s had a fair chance to present his case – and
here he has. This is not a case where the diagnosis is in dispute, such that I would benefit from hearing an expert explain his in terpretation of the record. The issue disputed by the experts – whether research involving Pandemr ix applies to FluMist – is self-evident from their reports. As previously noted, moreover, I have deemed Petitioner’s allegations about onset as true, removing another disputed fact that under other circumstances might have required an evidentiary hearing to resolve. The experts all had ample opportunity to review each other’s opinions and respond accordingly, in keeping with the “full and fair opportunity” duty that in forms whether to hold a hearing. And those reports, plus the ample medical and scientific literature offered in connection therewith, were all filed – thus providing the record necessary to resolve a motion for review,
should Petitioner choose to exerci se that opportunity. Resolution of the primary disputed issue –
the first Althen prong – did not require live testimony simp ly because it was a contested matter.

The third reason for not holding a hearing is less substantively important, but still significant. The Vaccine Program is currently inunda ted with cases, with filings growing at a rate faster than the existing special masters (whose numbers are limited by the Vaccine Act itself) can
handle. See Hooker, 2016 WL 3456435, at *22 (“[t]he special masters of this court, designated to decide these cases, now face nearly overwhelmi ng numbers of cases on each of their dockets, being required to resolve many more cases than in past years, but with the same number of special masters”). This means that legitimat ely contested matters cannot possibly be heard promptly after they are ready, even discounting th e need to schedule hearings at times mutuallyconvenient to counsel, witnesses, and experts. 32 Under such circumstances, special masters must necessarily reserve trials for ma tters where live witness testim ony is vital to resolution. Other cases, no matter how hotly contested, can be fairl y, and efficiently, resolved on the papers, even if they call for close review of the file and painstaking evaluati on of expert positions. This case presents such an instance.

32 This case, for example, could not have been heard until the second half of 2017 at the earliest, given my present calendar schedule for entitlement hearings – which at th e moment anticipates conducting ten individual hearings before Memorial Day 2017. Thus (and taking into account usual post-trial briefing), had I scheduled this case for hearing, it is unlikely I would have completed a decision in the matter before mid-2018. By contrast, this written decision is being released in 2016, and less than six months from the date the case was ripe for decision.38 CONCLUSION

The record does not support Mr. D’Tiole’s co ntention that the FluMist form of the flu vaccine could cause his narcolepsy or cataplexy, or did so. There is no more than a temporal relationship between vaccination and his subsequent symptoms – and, moreover, one that is not particularly close, and which the proposed theory is somewhat vague in addressing. Petitioner has not established entitlement to a damages award. 33

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

33 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may exped ite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.