In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-850V

(to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

A.Y., by his parents and natural guardians, *

J.Y. and S.Y., * Chief Special Master Corcoran

*

Petitioners, * Filed: June 26, 2020

*

v. * Varicella vaccine; Viral

* latency; Reactivation; Althen prong

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * three; Chickenpox;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Behavioral problems; Significant

* aggravation

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Renee Gentry, Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic, George Washington University Law School, 

Washington, DC, Petitioner.

Jennifer Reynaud, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, Respondent.

ENTITLEMENT DECISION1

On June 22, 2017, J.Y. and S.Y. filed a petition seeking compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”)2 alleging that their son, A.Y., 

experienced the reactivation of a varicella virus in 2014 or 2015 that was made possible by a 

varicella vaccine he was administered seven-plus years prior, in November 2007. Petition (ECF 

1 This Decision will be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 

2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means that the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the 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 furnished 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 privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the 

whole Decision will be available to the public in its current form. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 

All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
2

No. 1) at 1. This case was one of three filed on behalf of A.Y. and his siblings— triplets born 

November 14, 2006. Id.3 All of the claims have been consolidated into this matter. This Petition 

alleges a causation-in-fact, non-Table claim, and also a significant aggravation claim. 

Petitioners’ claim is quite novel. It depends on a finding that a vaccine-caused injury 

could, in effect, occur years after the vaccine’s administration—something no petitioner before 

has succeeded in establishing (in a non-Table context), and which somewhat flies in the face of

the legal view (implicit in the timeframe prong of the Federal Circuit’s causation test set forth 

in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (2005)) that some timeframes are 

simply too long to establish entitlement to damages, even taking into account the leniency of the 

Vaccine Program. But the claim proceeds from reliable science about the capacity of a wild virus 

varicella infection to be latent for long periods of time. I have therefore carefully considered 

Petitioners’ arguments, along with the expert/treater support offered for them and A.Y.’s 

medical history. 

For the reasons set forth below, I deny entitlement in this case. Even if it is true that the 

wild varicella virus can reactivate years after an infection, Petitioners have failed to offer 

sufficient reliable evidence that the varicella vaccine could do the same. Moreover, A.Y.’s 

medical history is so replete with complications, pre-onset symptoms, and controversial 

treatments that could have contributed to his symptoms that it is impossible to (a) deem the 

vaccine causal of his post-reactivation symptoms (which have not been persuasively 

demonstrated to be distinct from those he experienced before the alleged reactivation), or (b) 

conclude that he did in fact experience reactivation in the first place. I also do not find that a 

significant aggravation claim has been successfully established.

I. Factual Background

The following is obtained from the medical record filed in this case plus the pleadings. As 

Respondent noted in his Rule 4(c) Report, however, the records Petitioners initially filed were

extremely disorganized and appeared to be incomplete, with numerous gaps, and such deficiencies 

have never been completely cured despite opportunity to do so.

4

3 In early 2018, two additional petitions were filed, one for each of A.Y.’s siblings, alleging an injury from the same 

varicella vaccine. See Order Granting Mot. to Consolidate at 1, filed Jan. 4, 2018 (ECF No. 16). 

4 Respondent noted the existence of several (more than a dozen) incomplete records in his Rule 4(c) Report. See, e.g., 

Respondent’s 4(c) Rep. at 2–3 n.1–n.5, filed Nov. 15, 2018 (ECF No. 29). In order to address these documentary 

deficiencies, I granted Petitioners’ 2019 Motion to Strike Exhibits 1–18 (all of the records filed in the case at that time 

time). Order to Strike, filed Feb. 19, 2019 (ECF No. 31), at 1. Even after refiling, however, some exhibits still had 

more than twice the number of pages as their erroneous counterparts, and other deficiencies remain (for example, 

Petitioners’ Exhibit 24 is missing page 4). It is therefore impossible to conclude that the records are now complete. 
3

A.Y.’s Early Life and 2007 Receipt of the Varicella Vaccine

A.Y. is the eldest of triplets, born prematurely (after 33 weeks gestation) on November 

14, 2006. Ex. 24 at 38–54. He spent more than a month after birth in a neonatal intensive care 

unit, during which time he experienced reflux and was seen by a gastroenterologist. Id. at 48–49. 

The medical records do not thereafter reveal any significant concerns over the ensuing year for 

A.Y. or his two siblings. In November 2007, at his one-year well-child visit, A.Y. was 

administered the varicella zoster virus (“VZV”) vaccine. Id. at 5. There is no indication in the 

filed medical records that he experienced any immediate symptoms in association with receipt 

of this vaccine.

Developmental Problems and Medical Issues Predating Alleged Reactivation

It is undisputed in this case that A.Y. and his siblings have experienced developmental 

delays, and even received autism diagnoses, although Petitioners (at least expressly) do not allege 

these to be vaccine-related injuries. Nevertheless, A.Y.’s medical history in the wake of discovery of 

these developmental problems—and in particular the treatments he received—is highly relevant to 

the injuries that Petitioners do associate herein with the varicella vaccine.

Petitioners were concerned that A.Y. was possibly developmentally delayed as early as the 

end of 2007/start of 2008, when he was first evaluated and started on speech therapy, followed by 

occupational therapy. Ex. 21 at 750. He and his siblings were later examined for developmental 

delays by Helping Hands Clinic in San Antonio, Texas on June 25, 2008, when they were about 

19 months old. Ex. 32 at 1–4. The medical evaluator noted that A.Y. had been receiving Early

Childhood Intervention services through Easter Seals Rehabilitation since December 2007. Id. at 

3. A.Y. was formally diagnosed with autism in November 2009, when he was three (and thus two 

years post-vaccination). Ex. 29 at 5–8.

5

During the same general time period, Petitioners also began raising issues with A.Y.’s 

pediatric treaters about his gastrointestinal health. When A.Y. was 18 months old (late spring 

2008), his pediatrician noted that A.Y. was eating some solids but not meat, cheese, or yogurt. 

Ex. 24 at 11. The following year, A.Y. was evaluated by Ricki G. Robinson, M.D. (one of the 

treaters offering an opinion in this case) at the Descanso Medical Center for Development and 

Learning in LaCanada, California, a medical facility specializing in treatment of autism spectrum 

disorders (“ASD”) and related conditions. Ex. 27 at 2–40. Dr. Robinson noted, inter alia, that 

A.Y. had generally experienced difficulties with eating. Id. He was subsequently tested for celiac 

disease in May 2009, but the results were negative, and his IgG antibody levels were within the 

5 This exhibit appears to be missing the last page.
4

normal range. Ex. 24 at 33–37.

It was at this point in A.Y.’s life that treatments for his disparate health issues began to 

converge—especially to the extent that certain treaters sought out by Petitioners were proponents 

of the concept that autism is linked to gastrointestinal problems (and hence improvement of the 

latter is a means of treating the former). Thus, in early 2010, Petitioners took A.Y. to pediatrician

Jerrold Kartzinel, M.D., at Kartzinel Wellness Center in Orlando, Florida.

6 Ex. 21 at 750–53.7 In 

a medical history found in the records for this visit, Dr. Kartzinel recounted that A.Y. had 

experienced partial epilepsy/seizure (although the medical record does not corroborate this)8 and

chronic constipation with “mushy stools,” and Dr. Kartzinel included in the differential diagnosis

encephalopathy, metabolism disorder, immune mechanism disorder, and abnormal feces. Id. at 

752. Dr. Kartzinel also surmised that certain of A.Y.’s behavioral problems were likely 

attributable to a falling accident he experienced at the age of two (even though the record shows 

concerns for A.Y.’s development overall beginning almost a year before). Id. at 634.

By the summer of 2010, A.Y. (now three and one-half years old) was being “followed 

by multiple physicians because of gastrointestinal issues,” as well as by Drs. Robinson and 

Kartzinel for his developmental problems. Ex. 19 at 3. That July, Dr. Kartzinel wrote a “to 

whom it may concern” letter (perhaps to guide other treaters or assist Petitioners in obtaining 

other dispensations needed to help care for him) asserting that A.Y. had been diagnosed with 

epilepsy, gastroesophageal reflux, encephalopathy, metabolism disorder, sleep disorder, immune 

mechanism disorder, and abnormal feces. Ex. 21 at 427. He recommended a “special diet” for 

A.Y. and included a lengthy list of prohibited food items. Id.

Treatment 2010–14

In the ensuing four-plus years before the alleged onset of reactivated varicella virus, 

A.Y. received a dizzying number of treatments and medications. Among other things, Dr. 

6 Dr. Kartzinel is a proponent of autism therapies and treatments that are not well accepted by the medical community. 

It has been noted in other Vaccine Program cases that he was associated with “DAN!” (“Defeat Autism Now”), an 

entity that has proposed such clinically-unsubstantiated treatments. Holt v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 05-

0136V, 2015 WL 4381588, at *10 ns.41, 43(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 24, 2015). He also co-authored a book on 

autism with television celebrity Jenny McCarthy. Jenny McCarthy & Jerry Kartzinel, Healing and Preventing Autism: 

A Complete Guide (2010). 

7 It appears that Exhibit 21 is incomplete and is missing at least two pages. See Ex. 3 at 753. Internal pagination states 

“page 326 of 328” but the exhibit ends here. Id.

8 In the summer of 2009, a 24-hour EEG performed on A.Y. showed some secondary generalized epileptic discharges 

in sleep, for which A.Y. was prescribed medication. Ex. 27 at 91, 93. In August of that same year, however, he 

underwent a brain MRI that produced normal results. Ex. 30 at 53. A.Y. otherwise does not appear to have formally 

been diagnosed with epilepsy or seizure activity.
5

Kartzinel recommended a “mito cocktail” of supplements to treat a purported 

mitochondrial/energy processing disorder. See, e.g., Ex. 21 at 706. A.Y. also was prescribed a 

variety of other medications, including (a) three 90-day courses of Acyclovir/Valtrex (an antiviral drug used primarily for treatment of herpes and chickenpox)

9 (Ex. 21 at 490, 698, 724,

744); (b) antibiotics and antifungal medication for “mouthing” (Id. at 724, 726–27, 740); (c) 

leucovorin/folinic acid, most commonly used to treat chemotherapy side effects or folate 

deficiencies (Id. at 704–11); (d) Gabapentin/Neurontin (nerve pain medication and anticonversant) (Id. at 722); (e) an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication (Id. at 362); 

and (f) a medication used to treat dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (Id. at 648). In addition, 

A.Y. received hyperbaric oxygen therapy, a questionably-effective therapy often employed in 

the treatment of autism. Id. at 724.

10 And in the late fall of 2013, A.Y. received stem cell therapy 

as well. Id. at 608.

In the midst of receiving such wide-ranging medical interventions, A.Y. was diagnosed 

in September 2013 with a “cycle of abdominal pain.” Ex. 20 at 1; Ex. 21 at 616. By this time, 

S.Y. had noted to certain treaters that A.Y. received a very limited diet, and although he was 

gaining weight had grown no taller over the prior year. Ex. 20 at 1.

11 His abdominal pain 

episodes had purportedly responded well to certain over-the-counter treatments, but continued 

to exist off and on, varying in their severity. See e.g., Ex. 21 at 430, 566–68, 582, 594–96, 604–

10. Nevertheless, a colonoscopy performed on October 22, 2013, produced normal results, 

except for some patchy erythema in A.Y.’s small intestine mucosa, and proof of esophageal 

reflux. Ex. 30 at 29–36.

The records filed for 2014 also evidence the variety of treatments Petitioners pursued for 

A.Y. Thus, A.Y. received immunoglobulin and steroidal treatments for his abdominal issues in 

the early winter of 2014. Ex. 21 at 588–90. He also continued to undergo stem cell treatments, 

with some records suggesting some of the treatments were administered in Panama. Id. at 301, 

304, 209. In addition, a February 2014 record contains Dr. Kartzinel’s notation that A.Y. had 

recently been exposed to measles, causing him to express the concern that this might result in the

“reactivating” of the herpes virus, although the records do not explain how this would have occurred

9 The record provides no explanation for why chickenpox would be a concern in a child who had already received the

varicella vaccine. However, Acyclovir/Valtrex are also used to treat herpes (the symptoms of which can be similar to 

chickenpox), and there is record evidence that treaters like Dr. Kartzinel had concerns that A.Y. might be at risk for 

an HHV6/herpes infection. Ex. 21 at 582.

10 Anderson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 02-1314V, 2016 WL 825628, at *6 n.10 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 1, 2016), 

mot. for review den’d, 131 Fed. Cl. (2017), aff'd, 717 F. App’x 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

11 This record, like others, appears incomplete. Thus, a record from May 27, 2015, states that the date of A.Y.’s last 

visit was April 23, 2015, even though no record of that visit appears to have been filed. Ex. 20 at 21.
6

(or when A.Y. was believed to have first been exposed to the herpes virus). Id. at 329. There is no 

other evidence in the actual contemporaneous medical record that A.Y. experienced any rashes 

that might reflect a recurrent varicella infection in 2014 – and thus no record evidence 

substantiating the contention that A.Y.’s reactivation could have begun in the summer of 2014.

Alleged Onset of Reactivated Chickenpox/Varicella

The first evidence from the record of a possible varicella-associated rash comes from 

January 2015. At that time, A.Y. (now eight years old) saw his pediatrician, and S.Y. reported that 

A.Y. had just developed a rash, starting on his neck and spreading throughout his body. Ex. 30 at 

4. A.Y. did not have a fever, but “fluid filled lesions” were observed along with skin erythema. Id. 

His pediatrician now diagnosed A.Y. with “possible atypical varicella” and prescribed the same 

anti-viral medication, Acyclovir, that the record reveals A.Y. had been receiving in years past—in 

the absence of a chickenpox/varicella diagnosis. Id. 

There is no record of any follow-up visit with the pediatrician who proposed this varicella 

diagnosis. However, a few days later, on January 8, 2015, it appears that S.Y. had an on-line 

discussion with Dr. Kartzinel, reporting to him that the rash/chickenpox-appearing lesions had 

“almost cleared up. ([W.Y.] and [J.Y.] both had this, AJ too, did well) Never caused itching or

discomfort.” Ex. 21 at 548. The waning of the observed rash is again reported in a subsequent 

record from January 12, 2015. Id. at 546 (“[a]cylovir . . . much better, lesions cleared up”).

12 No 

other records thereafter support the propriety of the January 2015 diagnosis, or reflect other testing 

performed to confirm it.

Subsequent Treatments Received by A.Y.

The medical records for the remainder of 2015 and forward that have been filed in this case 

demonstrate the same broad attempts to treat A.Y.’s developmental and other symptoms with a 

wide array of therapies and medications. But these records are highly inconsistent in their 

discussion, or even mention, of A.Y.’s purported varicella reactivation, and also are unsupportive 

of Petitioners’ contentions that certain of A.Y.’s pre-reactivation symptoms now worsened.

In the second half of 2015, for example, A.Y. saw a gastroenterologist—Arthur Krigsman, 

M.D.13—and the records from the initial visits described A.Y.’s overall history, but do not mention 

12 These records also confirm that A.Y.’s behavior issues predated the onset of the observed rash, since there is

reference in them to treatment of aggressive and rage-filled behavior in 2014, as well as to the fact that at this time 

A.Y. was “still” prone to such outbursts. Ex. 21 at 548.

13 Dr. Krigsman was one of many experts who more than ten years ago offered testimony in the Omnibus Autism 

Proceeding (the “OAP”)—a proceeding which combined into three test cases thousands of claims asserting similar 
7

any rash or chickenpox lesions from the prior January. Ex. 33 at 14–35. Dr. Kartinzel was 

consulted again about A.Y. in November 2015, at which time S.Y. reported that A.Y. had been 

experiencing stomach pain and also “the beginnings of a chick pox type rash,” for which she had

(again) administered Acyclovir. Ex. 21 at 498–99. 

That same November, at a pre-endoscopy/colonoscopy physical, S.Y. repeated the claim 

that A.Y. was experiencing chickenpox lesions, adding that he had experienced five such episodes 

over the prior eleven months, but that they had responded well to the Acyclovir treatments. Ex. 30

at 62. These records do not corroborate the underlying facts reported in this medical history, 

however. Dr. Krigsman was responsible for performing the colonoscopy/endoscopy on A.Y. that 

November 2015. Ex. 21 at 172–79. The pathology report revealed no diagnostic abnormalities, but 

Dr. Krigsman nevertheless diagnosed A.Y. with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)-associated 

enteritis (a diagnosis he has maintained is legitimate despite ample authority to the contrary).

14 Ex. 

21 at 104–10, 172.

Around this time, one of Petitioners’ three experts offering opinions in this matter, Anne 

Gershon, M.D. (a researcher and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University College of 

Physicians and Surgeons), apparently was provided access to the biopsy results, and later (as 

discussed below) prepared a report on them—although she did not do so at the time, and no other 

records from Dr. Gershon or this research facility have been filed. Ex. 34 at 1. But Dr. Gershon 

did subsequently represent in a December 2015 email to Dr. Krigsman that she had “found RNA 

transcripts of 3 [varicella] genes (#62, 63, 67) in the intestinal specimens that were in RNA later . .

. Finding those transcripts indicated an intestinal infection of the mucosa.” Ex. 21 at 492. Dr. 

Gershon proposed in response that A.Y. should receive Valacyclovir to “relieve [A.Y.’s] 

abdominal pain,” and Dr. Kartzinel agreed to prescribe it. Id. at 493. It was also suggested that 

A.Y. be taken to see allergist/immunologist Raffi Tachdjian, M.D. Id. at 494.

The very next month, in late December 2015, A.Y. was seen by Dr. Tachdjian – who made

findings that undermined some of the assumptions about A.Y.’s alleged varicella reactivation. Ex. 

26 at 3. Dr. Tachdjian described photos of A.Y.’s rash as appearing “viral but not that of classic 

causation theories involving the alleged capacity for certain vaccines to cause ASDs. None of these cases succeeded. 

See, e.g., Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 98-916V, 2009 WL 331968 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 12, 

2009), mot. for review den’d, 89 Fed. Cl. 158 (2009), aff'd, 617 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Dr. Krigsman specifically 

testified that the measles virus, derived from a child’s MMR vaccine, could linger in the intestinal tissue of autistic 

children, causing chronic gastric inflammatory distress. Cedillo, 2009 WL 331968, at *103–04. However, Dr. 

Krigsman was deemed to possess significant deficiencies in his professional credentials and experience. Id. at *105-

06. In addition, the theory he offered was characterized as “quite unpersuasive” (Id. at *107), because (a) it relied on 

questionable testing results, (b) it embraced the “autistic enterocolitis” theory that discredited medical expert Dr. 

Andrew Wakefield had espoused, and (c) it did not take into account the actual relevant medical history pertaining to 

the purportedly injured child (Id. at *108–14).

14 See, e.g., Cedillo, 2009 WL 331968, at *108–14.
8

varicella or HSV.” Id. But he also noted that A.Y. had tested negative for varicella IgG antibodies, 

suggesting that A.Y. had not had prior exposure in spite of Dr. Gershon’s findings, and also that 

A.Y.’s herpes antibody levels were normal. Id. Dr. Tachdjian ultimately prescribed IVIG therapy 

to address “poor antibody function.” Id. 

In 2016, Petitioners continued to seek advice from the same overall constellation of treaters, 

none of whom diverged particularly from previously-expressed views. In February 2016, for 

example, A.Y. again saw Dr. Krigsman, who reiterated his opinion that A.Y. suffered from ASDassociated enteritis, acknowledging Dr. Gershon’s other findings with respect to varicella 

reactivation although not seeming to rely on them for his opinion. Ex. 21 at 28; see also Ex. 33 at 

25.

Dr. Tachdjian, by contrast, appeared to believe that the proper diagnosis for A.Y. had not 

been determined, and wrote a letter to the Undiagnosed Disease Network in August 2016 to that 

end. Ex. 26 at 5–7. He acknowledged that A.Y. had experienced chickenpox-like marks, but that 

IVIG treatment caused them to subside. Id. The letter also maintained, however, that a saliva test

performed in February 2016 was positive for varicella zoster. Id. at 6. Indeed, Dr. Tachdjian

proposed that A.Y. suffered from a “recurrent Varicella infection” in his intestines, asserting that 

Dr. Gershon’s findings corroborated this. Id. at 5. He added that the purported infection was the 

cause of “chronic pain” that A.Y. experienced but which could be alleviated by some of the 

antiviral treatments he received, although he could not explain the reason why the infection could 

not be suppressed by A.Y.’s immune system. Id.

Earlier that year, on February 3, 2016, A.Y. saw pediatric infectious disease specialist Paul 

Krogstad, M.D. Ex. 35 at 1–6. He took note of the finding from Dr. Gershon of varicella zoster 

virus replication, along with repeated rashes in 2015 generally. Id. at 1. However, although Dr. 

Krogstad expressed the belief that the rashes were “compatible with varicella,” he added that their 

apparent rapid resolution after Acyclovir treatment suggested the need to consider other possible 

causes, including viral exanthemas or enterovirus infections. Id. at 5.

Petitioners have filed no other subsequent records bearing on A.Y.’s purported injury.

II. Expert and Treater Opinions

A. Dr. Robinson

As noted above, Dr. Robinson (a clinical pediatric professor) has been treating A.Y. in 

connection with his autism diagnosis for more than ten years. She prepared a three-page letterreport in support of Petitioners’ claim. Report, dated March 25, 2019, filed as Ex. 39 (ECF No. 
9

34-4) (“Robinson Rep.”).

Dr. Robinson earned her M.D. from the University of Southern California in 1973. 

Robinson CV at 1, filed May 13, 2019 (ECF No. 37-3). She served as Chief Pediatric Resident 

at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in 1976 and is board certified in pediatrics. Id. In 1988 she 

earned her Masters in Public Health from the University at Berkeley School of Public Health. 

Id. She has been in private practice for nearly 40 years and currently serves as the co-director of 

Descanso Medical Center for Development and learning in La Canada, California. Id. Most of 

her expertise is focused on autism and helping children with developmental delays. See id.

Dr. Robinson’s report largely summarizes A.Y.’s medical history from 2009 (when she 

first diagnosed him with an ASD) through February 2019, the month before her report’s 

preparation, based on her personal knowledge from contact with him. Robinson Rep. at 2–3. 

Although she does opine that A.Y. has experienced a “marked change” in his health (as 

particularly reflected in worsened behavioral changes) since his abdominal pain purportedly 

increased, and although she temporally associates these changes with the alleged varicella 

reactivation, her opinion of an association does not arise from direct knowledge pertaining to 

how a vaccine might result in viral reactivation. Indeed, she assumes reactivation was “proven” 

by Dr. Gershon’s purported discovery in November 2015 from A.Y.’s biopsy of the same 

varicella strain as that he received in 2007. Id. at 1–2. Her opinion is thus significantly dependent 

on Dr. Gershon’s (and thus relies upon its scientific reliability).

More importantly, Dr. Robinson’s report acknowledges that A.Y.’s behavioral changes, 

presumably attributable to severe abdominal pain exacerbated by the varicella reactivation, may 

actually have predated the January 2015 onset that the medical records support (since that is the 

best evidence of when A.Y. first displayed what could be chickenpox lesions). Thus, Dr. 

Robinson states that “beginning in the fall 2014 but definitely after the January 2015, VZV 

outbreak,” A.Y. experienced a progressive change in behavioral symptoms. Robinson Rep. at 3

(emphasis added). She otherwise, however, recounts instances of behavioral problems in 2015 

and later, after the first record-substantiated manifestations of a purported varicella reactivation. 

Id. at 2–3.

B. Dr. Richard A. Honaker

Dr. Honaker, a family practice physician, provided for this case a medical records 

chronology as well as a brief, three-page report. See Letter, dated March 22, 2019, filed as Ex. 

40 (ECF No. 34-5) (“Honaker Chronology”); Report, dated March 22, 2019, filed as Ex. 43 

(ECF No. 34-8) (“Honaker Rep.”). Dr. Honaker had no direct treatment involvement with A.Y., 
10

unlike Drs. Robinson and Gershon.

Dr. Honaker earned his M.D. from the University of Virginia in 1977. Honaker CV at 1, 

filed on Mar. 28, 2019 (ECF No. 34-9). After graduating from medical school, he completed his 

internship at Mt. Carmel Medical Center in 1978 to 1979. Id. Then, from 1982 to 1984 he was 

a family practice resident at Parkland Memorial Hospital/St. Paul Medical Center and the 

University of Texas Health Science Center/Children’s Medical Center. Id. He has been in private 

practice since 1984 and is board certified in Family medicine. Id. at 1–2.

Dr. Honaker’s records chronology largely tracks the medical history recounted above, and 

appends some items from the filed records to it, such as A.Y.’s vaccination history, or literature 

relevant to Dr. Gershon’s opinion. It repeats the contention that A.Y. experienced some kind of 

chickenpox-like rash or lesions as early as June 2014, although it does not provide a record 

citation for its assertion (and my own review of the record finds no substantiation for onset 

beginning that early). Honaker Chronology at 1. Dr. Honaker also acknowledges (consistent 

with my own review of the record) that the disorganized and incomplete state of the filed medical 

records made it impossible for him to prevent “inaccuracies and errors” in his summary. Id. at 

2. 

The expert opinion offered by Dr. Honaker is set forth in his report. He reiterates his prior 

chronology and then, while allowing that the evidence presented in this case is “somewhat 

ambiguous and uncertain,” goes on to provide an opinion based on his review of the record. 

Honaker Rep. at 2. Dr. Honaker asserts that there is a temporally-broad period in which the 

record suggests reactivation may have occurred, measuring the period from the fall of 2013 (the 

time of A.Y.’s normal intestinal biopsy) to January 2015 (although he again repeats without 

record citation the assertion that there was evidence of a rash in June 2014). Id. He then 

maintains that A.Y. (a) likely experienced reactivation of the virus in January 2015, as 

corroborated by Dr. Gershon’s fall 2015 findings, and (b) suffered exacerbation of his GI-related 

pain and behavioral issues thereafter. Id.

Dr. Honaker is frank in acknowledging the limitations of his opinion. He admits that he 

lacks specialization in the medical or scientific areas put into dispute in this case, other than his 

family practice exposure to administering vaccinations or treating chickenpox. Honaker Rep. at 

2. He recommends contacting other professionals to conduct a “multidisciplinary interaction” 

amongst them to ascertain the issues in this case, and refers to an article attached to his 

chronology that was authored and offered in this case by Dr. Gershon. Id. at 3.

C. Dr. Gershon

Anne Gershon, M.D., a researcher and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University 
11

College of Physicians and Surgeons, was the third and final expert/treater consulted for an 

opinion in this case. In addition to her report, she prepared a document in 2017 (several months 

after the claim’s filing) that references the biopsy results from A.Y.’s 2015 colonoscopy, and 

her opinion relies on this 2017 document. Report, filed as Ex. 38 on March 28, 2019 (ECF No. 

34-3) (“Gershon Rep.”); “Molecular Test Report for Research Patient #57,” dated November 9, 

2017, re-filed as Ex. 34 on February 20, 2019 (ECF No. 33-8) (the “Molecular Test Report”).

Dr. Gershon earned her M.D. at Cornell medical school. Gershon CV at 1, filed on May 

13, 2019 (ECF No. 37-2). After graduating from medical school, beginning in 1986, she became 

a professor of pediatrics at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Id. There 

she researched “epidemiology, diagnosis, immunology, latency, prevention, and treatment of 

varicella and zoster. Id. Since then she has researched VZV, Zoster, and latency and reactivation 

throughout her career. See id. at 1–2; see also Gershon Rep. at 1. She currently practices 

medicine at New York-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and is board certified 

in Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Disease. Id. at 2, 6.

Dr. Gershon’s report begins by observing that the VZV vaccine contains attenuated 

components of the live varicella virus. Gershon Rep. at 2. She then notes that it is medically 

understood that the wild varicella virus can stay latent for long periods of time, ‘hiding” in the 

sensory neurons, but can then be reactivated to cause infection. Id. Her theory therefore supposes 

that the live viral components of the vaccine could similarly become latent in the same manner

as a wild virus infection.

Dr. Gershon does not offer any literature to bulwark this contention, but appended to Dr. 

Honaker’s medical history chronology was an article co-authored by Dr. Gershon and her 

husband, Dr. Michael Gershon, discussing the latency concept. Michael and Anne Gershon, 

Varicella-Zoster Virus and the Enteric Nervous System, 218 J. Infect. Diseases, Supp. 2:S113–

19 (2018), attached to Honaker Chronology at 6–12 (the “Gershon Article”).15 The Gershon 

Article is primarily focused on an animal study its authors performed that demonstrated the 

varicella virus could also be latent in autonomic nervous system neurons, and in particular in the 

enteric nervous system (which governs the function of the gastrointestinal tract), thereby on 

reactivation causing some GI-oriented conditions. Gershon Article at S113. Although the 

Gershon Article did not specifically analyze the impact of vaccination versus wild infection in 

understanding enteric reactivation, or the nature of the injuries a vaccine-related reactivation 

would produce in any sense, it does mention that vaccination has been found to be capable of 

latency and reactivation, even though the vaccine was administered in the periphery, through 

viremia (in which the viral particles contained in the vaccine would access the blood stream, 

15 Notably, Dr. Michael Gershon himself offered an opinion against Dr. Krigsman’s theory about ASD-associated 

gastrointestinal illness in the OAP cases. See, e.g., Cedillo, 2009 WL 331968, at *105.
12

allowing them transport throughout the body). Id. at S113–14. The literature cited in the 

Gershon Article for these propositions has not been filed in this case, however.

Dr. Gershon went on in her report to consider A.Y.’s history, including the role she played 

in his treatment in 2015. She notes that A.Y. and his siblings received the VZV vaccine in 2007 

and never experienced clinical chickenpox (thus establishing no evidence of a prior varicella 

infection that could be reactivated). However, after reviewing in 2015 the results of the biopsy 

performed that same year by Dr. Krigsman, Dr. Gershon discovered that A.Y. was experiencing 

an “active” varicella infection of a strain consistent with that contained in the vaccine 

administered eight years before, but inconsistent with the wild virus strain, and that the infection 

persisted into 2016 despite treatment, as evidenced by saliva tests (the evidence of which does 

not appear to have been filed in this case). Gershon Rep. at 2. She then maintains that beginning 

in 2015 A.Y. started to experience severe abdominal pain at the same time he was displaying

chickenpox-like rashes, events that in her view reflected the existence of varicella reactivation. 

Id. She went on to predict that this reactivation would persist in A.Y.’s life, and that treatment 

would be somewhat ineffective in controlling it, due to A.Y.’s sensitivities to the side effects of 

antiviral medications. Id. at 2–3.

No other literature or evidence was filed in connection with Dr. Gershon’s report. 

However, as noted above Dr. Gershon did file the Molecular Test Report—a one-page document 

dated November 9, 2017 (nearly two years after A.Y.’s biopsy) and signed by Dr. Gershon and 

a Jason Chen, Ph.D., identified as a research scientist at Columbia University’s College of 

Physicians and Surgeons. The Molecular Test Report refers to review of the intestinal biopsy 

for a “Patient #57” that was reviewed in November 2015. There is no way, however, to tell from 

the document’s face when it was created or who “Patient #57” was, although it presumably 

refers to A.Y.’s biopsy, which the record confirms Dr. Gershon in fact reviewed in 2015. The 

document references the following finding: “VZV ORFs 62, 63, 67, 68 were each positive by 

nested PCR.” Molecular Test Report at 1. This is likely the finding referenced in Dr. Gershon’s 

Report, although it is only partially corroborated by the record, which records Dr. Gershon 

informing A.Y.’s treaters only that RNA transcripts for three VZV genes were identified. Ex. 

21 at 492, 495–96. No backup materials relating to this testing has been filed, further increasing 

the difficulty of confirming the accuracy of such representations. 

III. Procedural History

As noted, this claim was initiated in 2017, and originally assigned to former Special 

Master Millman. Two more claims were filed for A.Y.’s two siblings in early 2018, but assigned 
13

to me.16 Before completion of the filing of medical records, however, the present claim was also 

assigned to me, and I subsequently ordered the three related claims consolidated into one. Order, 

dated January 4, 2018 (ECF No. 16). 

Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report was not filed until November 2018, and contested the 

propriety of compensation. ECF No. 29. Given the extreme novelty of the claim, and concerns 

I had about its viability based on a preliminary view of the record,

17 I thereafter issued a show 

cause order requiring Petitioners to demonstrate why the claim should not be dismissed. Docket 

entry dated November 28, 2018. In response, Petitioners filed a brief defending their claim (with 

respect solely to the first A.Y.-filed petition) on May 13, 2019 (ECF No. 38) (“Br.”). Respondent 

reacted to my Order and requested dismissal in a pleading filed September 11, 2019 (ECF No. 

41) (“Opp.”). Petitioners thereafter offered a reply brief on December 12, 2019 (ECF No. 44)

(“Reply”).

IV. Parties’ Respective Arguments

Petitioners maintain that the VZV vaccine A.Y. received in 2007 caused the virus 

components it contained to stay latent in his body for years (just as it is known the wild virus 

can do). Br. at 5. It can then be reactivated “at any time” thereafter, and in doing so could produce 

chickenpox symptoms, and also cause or exacerbate abdominal pain and developmental 

problems. Reply at 1. For evidence that the vaccine did cause A.Y.’s post-2015 symptoms, 

Petitioners point to the November 2015 intestinal biopsy review by Dr. Gershon, which 

purported to find evidence of the varicella virus that was consistent with the vaccine’s 

components. Br. at 5–6. And the timeframe for reactivation was medically acceptable, with A.Y. 

experiencing chickenpox-like rashes beginning at least in January 2015, followed by bouts of 

severe abdominal pain and aggressive behavior associated with his other developmental 

problems. Id.

Respondent countered these points, and argued for dismissal of the claim. He referenced

16 See W.Y. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-11V (filed January 2, 2018) (“Matter II”), and A.Y. v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., No. 18-12V (filed January 2, 2018) (“Matter III”). Matter II was filed on behalf of W.Y., and 

alleged (unlike with respect to A.Y.) that W.Y.’s chickenpox/varicella reactivation symptoms only began in January 

2015, and also seems to argue that W.Y.’s developmental problems generally are vaccine-caused. In Matter III, 

Petitioners asserted that a different sibling, but also with the initials A.Y., experienced reactivation with onset in June 

2015. In both more-recent filings, however, Petitioners maintained the siblings had (similar to this case) tested positive 

for a reactivated vaccine-contained varicella strain.

17 Earlier in the case’s life I also expressed some concerns about whether the claim was timely under the Act’s threeyear/thirty-six month limitations period, since the vaccination had occurred over seven years before onset—but 

because Vaccine Act claims only run from first manifestation of symptoms (whether or not they are so understood) 

allegedly due to a vaccine, and since this claim was filed in 2017 based on symptoms that are alleged to have arisen 

no earlier than summer 2014, I have treated it as timely for statute of limitations purposes.
14

A.Y.’s overall record, and the extent to which it reveals the myriad number of treatments and 

ASD-oriented therapies, some of which do not find widespread acceptance in the medical 

community. Opp. at 4–5. He also noted that the purported chickenpox rash appears to have 

cleared up right away and/or responded to medication (the same medication that A.Y. received 

multiple times between the date of vaccination and his symptoms manifestation), thus raising 

questions about whether in fact A.Y. did experience varicella reactivation. And he emphasized 

that although Petitioners have denied asserting A.Y.’s autism was vaccine-caused, they do seem 

to associate his purported varicella reactivation with worsening of autism-related symptoms, 

such as poor behavioral control (evidence of which predated the most likely onset of January 

2015), even though that kind of claim has repeatedly been rejected in the Program. Id. at 5–6.

Indeed, it is Respondent’s view that Petitioners have not clearly delineated what A.Y.’s injury 

actually is. Id. at 6–7.

Based on the above, Respondent asserts that Petitioners cannot preponderantly establish 

entitlement in this case. Petitioners, he argues, have not demonstrated that the vial components 

of the VZV vaccine could remain latent for the amount of time at issue herein to cause injury—

or that in fact it did so to A.Y. in this case. In the latter regard, Respondent notes that the evidence 

offered from Dr. Gershon purportedly corroborating the latent, post-vaccination varicella 

infection is not supported by the record, which only includes Dr. Gershon’s one-page Molecular 

Test Report without corroborative back-up information. Opp. at 7–8. The contention that A.Y. 

even had a varicella infection as of January 2015 is not itself record-supported. He also points 

out that there is significant record evidence that certain of A.Y.’s purported symptoms, such as 

declining behavioral control, predated vaccination. Id. at 7–9. And Respondent questions the 

value of Drs. Robinson and Honaker’s reports otherwise. Id. at 8.

On reply, Petitioners contend that A.Y.’s vaccine injury was recurrent chickenpox 

symptoms—including severe abdominal pain, rash, and pain related anxiety—and these 

symptoms began “as early as June 24, 2014 and certainly by January 2, 2015.” Reply at 5.

Petitioners also maintained that the varicella vaccine would remain latent in the body for years 

and then reactivate causing the constellation of A.Y.’s symptoms. Id. at 6. They also argued that 

Drs. Gershon and Robinson’s reports should be afforded greater weight because of their position 

as treaters. Id. at 6–7 (citing Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1326 

(Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioners conclude that based on “the medical documentation of Drs. 

Robinson and Gershon [] A.Y. has met the preponderant standard of substantial contribution to 

significant aggravation of the claimant’s complex medical issues like GI pain and behavioral 

issues secondary to vaccine-strain VZV reactivation . . . .” Id. at 7. 

V. Applicable Law

A. Standards for Vaccine Claims
15

To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove that: (1) they 

suffered an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table (i.e., a “Table Injury”); or (2) they 

suffered an injury actually caused by a vaccine (i.e., 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, 

440 F.3d at 1320. In this case, Petitioners do not assert a Table claim.

For both Table and Non–Table claims, Vaccine Program petitioners bear a “preponderance 

of the evidence” burden 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 favor 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) (explaining that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a 

preponderance standard). On one hand, proof of medical certainty is not required. Bunting v. Sec'y 

of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991). But on the other hand, 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 petitioner may not receive a 

Vaccine Program award based solely on his assertions; rather, the petition must be supported by 

either medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. Section 13(a)(1).

In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a 

Non–Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal 

Circuit in Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278: “(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 proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and 

injury.” Each Althen prong requires a different showing and is discussed in turn along with the 

parties’ arguments and my findings. 

Under Althen prong one, petitioners must provide a “reputable medical theory,” 

demonstrating that the vaccine received can cause the type of injury alleged. Pafford, 451 F.3d at 

1355–56 (citations omitted). To satisfy this prong, a 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 

scientifically certain.” Id. at 549. This standard was recently clarified by the Federal Circuit. See

Boatmon v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 941 F.3d 1351, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (correct 

standard for Althen prong one is “reputable,” and “sound and reliable,” not a “lower reasonable 

standard” (internal quotations omitted)).
16

Petitioners may satisfy the first Althen prong without resort to medical literature, 

epidemiological studies, demonstration 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 laboratorian, but instead from the vantage point of the Vaccine Act's preponderant 

evidence standard.” Id. at 1380. This is consistent with the 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).18

The second Althen prong requires proof of a logical sequence 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 injured 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 physicians are likely to be in the best position to determine whether a 

‘logical sequence of cause and 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 evidence, since they are created 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 statements 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 summary shall not be binding on the special master 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 physician 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 physicians are only as trustworthy as the 

reasonableness of their suppositions or bases. The 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 capricious for special master to weigh competing treating physicians' 

18 Although there has been some confusion in the past as to whether the first Althen prong is itself subject to a 

preponderant standard, ample controlling authority stands for the more straightforward proposition that the first Althen

prong is subject to a preponderance standard. Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 618 F.3d 1339, 1350 

(Fed. Cir. 2010).
17

conclusions against each other), aff'd, 698 F.3d 1355 (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, 356–57 (2011), aff'd without opinion, 475 F. 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.” de Bazan v. 

Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The explanation for what 

is a medically acceptable timeframe 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. Standards Applicable to Significant Aggravation Claim

Where a petitioner alleges significant aggravation of a preexisting condition, the Althen

test is expanded, and the petitioner has additional evidentiary burdens to satisfy. Loving v. Sec’y 

of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 135, 144 (2009). In Loving, the Court of Federal Claims 

combined the Althen test with the test from Whitecotton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 81 

F.3d 1099, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1996), which related to on-Table significant aggravation cases. The 

resultant “significant aggravation” test has six components, which require establishing:

(1) the person’s condition prior to administration of the vaccine, (2) the person’s 

current condition (or the condition following the vaccination if that is also 

pertinent), (3) whether the person’s current condition constitutes a “significant 

aggravation” of the person’s condition prior to vaccination, (4) a medical theory 

causally connecting such a significantly worsened condition to the vaccination, (5) 

a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason 

for the significant aggravation, and (6) a showing of a proximate temporal 

relationship between the vaccination and the significant aggravation.

Loving, 86 Fed. Cl. at 144; see also W.C., 704 F.3d at 1357 (holding that “the Loving case provides 

the correct framework for evaluating off-table significant aggravation claims”). In effect, the last 

three prongs of the Loving test correspond to the three Althen prongs.
18

Subsumed within the Loving analysis is the requirement to evaluate the likely natural 

course of an injured party’s preexisting disease, in order to determine whether the vaccine made 

the petitioner worse than he would have been but for the vaccination. Locane v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 685 F.3d 1375, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (upholding special master’s determination 

that petitioner had failed to carry her burden of proof in establishing that her preexisting injury 

was worsened by the relevant vaccine); Hennessey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 01-

190V, 2009 WL 1709053, at *41–42 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 29, 2009), mot. for review denied, 

91 Fed. Cl. 126 (2010). The critical point of examination is thus “whether the change for the worse 

in [petitioner’s] clinical presentation was aggravation or a natural progression” of the underlying 

condition. Hennessey, 2009 WL 1709053, at *42.19 The Federal Circuit has upheld the 

determinations of special masters that worsening was not demonstrated in connection with 

establishing a petitioner’s overall preponderant burden of proof for a non-Table causation-in-fact 

claim. See, e.g., Snyder/Harris v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 553 F. Appx. 994, 999–1000 

(Fed. Cir. 2014); Locane, 685 F.3d at 1381–82.20

C. Law Governing Analysis of Fact Evidence

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 coroner's report which is contained 

in the record regarding the nature, causation, and aggravation of the petitioner's illness, disability, 

injury, condition, or death,” as well as the “results of any diagnostic or evaluative test which are 

contained in the record and the summaries and conclusions.” Section 13(b)(1)(A). The special 

master is then required to weigh the evidence presented, including contemporaneous medical 

records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 

1993) (determining that it is within the special master's discretion to determine whether to afford 

19 The legislative history of the Vaccine Act strongly supports interpreting “significant aggravation” as requiring a 

claimant to establish that a vaccine rendered a preexisting condition qualitatively worse than it would have been 

otherwise—not simply that the affected individual experienced a post-vaccination symptom that contrasts with the 

individual’s comparatively better pre-vaccination health. See H.R. Rep. No. 99-908, at 15 (1986) (“This [significant 

aggravation] provision does not include compensation for conditions which might legitimately be described as preexisting (e.g., a child with monthly seizures who, after vaccination, has seizures every three and a half weeks), but is 

meant to encompass serious deterioration (e.g., a child with monthly seizures who, after vaccination, has seizures on 

a daily basis” (emphasis added)).

20 This is consistent with the fact (well recognized by controlling precedent) that evidence of “worsening” relevant to 

Respondent’s alternative cause burden may reasonably by evaluated by a special master in determining the success of 

a petitioner’s prima facie showing. Snyder/Harris, 553 F. Appx. at 1000 (“‘[N]o evidence should be embargoed from 

the special master’s consideration simply because it is also relevant to another inquiry under the statute.’” (quoting 

Stone v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 676 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012))); see also de Bazan at 1353 (“[t]he 

government, like any defendant, is permitted to offer evidence to demonstrate the inadequacy of the petitioner’s 

evidence on a requisite element of the petitioner’s case-in-chief.”).
19

greater weight to contemporaneous medical records than to other evidence, such as oral testimony 

surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination 

is evidenced by a rational determination).

Medical records that are created contemporaneously with the events they describe are 

presumed to be accurate and “complete” (i.e., presenting all relevant information on a patient's 

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 inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and his 

contemporaneous medical records, the special master's decision to rely on petitioner's medical 

records was rational and consistent with applicable law”), aff'd, Rickett v. Sec'y of Health & Human 

Servs., 468 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential opinion). This presumption is based 

on the linked propositions that (i) sick people visit medical professionals; (ii) sick people honestly 

report their health problems to those professionals; 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 enough 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 at 

1525 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[i]t strains reason to conclude that petitioners would fail to accurately 

report the onset of their daughter's symptoms.”).

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, contemporaneous medical 

records are generally found to be deserving of greater evidentiary weight than oral testimony—

especially where such testimony conflicts 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 per curiam, 

968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992), 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 conflict with contemporaneous documents is entitled to little evidentiary 

weight.”)).

However, there are situations in which compelling oral testimony may be more persuasive 

than written records, such as where 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 are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than 

those which are internally consistent”) (quoting Murphy, 23 Cl. Ct. at 733)). 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 
20

Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

When witness testimony is offered to overcome the presumption of accuracy afforded to 

contemporaneous medical records, such testimony 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 medical records, the Court of Federal Claims has 

listed four possible explanations for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical 

records and later testimony: (1) a person's failure to recount to the medical professional everything 

that happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional's failure to document 

everything reported to her or him; (3) a person's faulty recollection of the events when presenting 

testimony; or (4) a person's purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. 

Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203–04 (2013), aff'd, 746 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). In making a determination regarding whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous 

medical records or other evidence, such as testimony at hearing, there must be evidence that this 

decision was the result of a rational determination. Burns, 3 F.3d at 417.

D. Analysis of Expert Testimony

Establishing a sound and reliable medical theory 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). Under Daubert, the factors for analyzing the reliability 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) whether 

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).

However, in the Vaccine Program the Daubert factors play a slightly different role than 

they do when applied in other federal judicial settings—e.g., the district courts. Typically, Daubert

factors are employed by judges (in the performance of their evidentiary gatekeeper roles) to 

exclude evidence that is unreliable or could confuse a jury. By contrast, in Vaccine Program cases 

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) (“uniquely in this Circuit, the 
21

Daubert factors have been employed also as an acceptable evidentiary-gauging tool with respect 

to persuasiveness of expert testimony already admitted”). The flexible use of the Daubert factors 

to evaluate the persuasiveness and reliability of expert testimony has routinely been upheld. See, 

e.g., Snyder, 88 Fed. Cl. at 742–45. In this matter (as in numerous other Vaccine Program cases), 

Daubert has not been employed at the threshold, to determine what evidence should be admitted, 

but instead to determine whether expert testimony offered is reliable and/or persuasive.

Respondent frequently offers one or more experts 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,” especially if “there is simply too 

great an analytical gap between 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 F. App’x. 999 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Cedillo, 

617 F.3d at 1339). Weighing the relative persuasiveness of competing expert testimony, based on 

a particular expert's credibility, is part of the overall reliability analysis to which special masters 

must subject expert testimony in Vaccine Program cases. Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1325–26 

(“[a]ssessments as to the reliability of expert testimony often turn on credibility determinations”); 

see also Porter v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 663 F.3d 1242, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“this 

court has unambiguously explained that special masters are expected to consider the credibility of 

expert witnesses in evaluating petitions for compensation under the Vaccine Act”).

E. Consideration of Medical Literature

Both parties filed medical and scientific literature in this case, but not all such items factor 

into the outcome of this decision. While I have reviewed all the medical literature submitted in this 

case, I discuss only those articles that are most relevant to my determination and/or are central to 

Petitioners’ case—just as I have not exhaustively discussed every individual medical record filed. 

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); see also Paterek v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 527 F. App’x 875, 884 (Fed. Cir. 

2013) (“[f]inding certain information not relevant does not lead to—and likely undermines—the 

conclusion that it was not considered”).

F. Consideration of Prior Vaccine Program Decisions
22

In reaching a decision in this case, I have considered other decisions issued by special 

masters involving similar injuries, vaccines, or circumstances. I also reference some of those cases 

in this Decision, in an effort to establish common themes, as well as demonstrate how prior 

determinations impact my thinking on the present case.

There is no error in doing so. It is certainly correct that prior decision in different cases do 

not control the outcome herein.21 Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 941 F.3d 1351, 

1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Hanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 625, 630 (1998). 

Thus, the fact that another special master reasonably determined elsewhere, on the basis of facts 

not in evidence in this case, that preponderant evidence supported the conclusion that vaccine X 

caused petitioner’s injury Y does not compel me to reach the same conclusion in this case. 

Different actions present different background medical histories, different experts, and different 

items of medical literature, and therefore can reasonably result in contrary determinations.

However, it is equally the case that special masters reasonably draw upon their experience 

in resolving Vaccine Act claims. Doe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 76 Fed. Cl. 328, 338-39 

(2007) (“[o]ne reason that proceedings are more expeditious in the hands of special masters is that 

the special masters have the expertise and experience to know the type of information that is most 

probative of a claim”) (emphasis added). They would thus be remiss in ignoring prior cases 

presenting similar theories or factual circumstances, along with the reasoning employed in 

reaching such decisions. This is especially so given that special masters not only routinely hear 

from the same experts in comparable cases, but are also repeatedly offered the same items of 

medical literature regarding certain common causation theories. It defies reason and logic to 

obligate special masters to “reinvent the wheel,” so to speak, in each new case before them, paying 

no heed at all to how their colleagues past and present have addressed similar causation theories 

or fact patterns. It is for this reason that prior decisions can have high persuasive value—and why 

special masters often explain how a new determination relates to such past decisions.22 Even if the 

Federal Circuit does not require special masters to distinguish other relevant cases (Boatmon, 941 

21 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. Appx. 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). 

Special masters are also bound within a specific case by determinations made by judges of the Court of Federal Claims 

after a motion for review is resolved.

22 Consideration of prior determinations is a two-way street that does not only inure to the benefit of one party. Thus, 

I would likely take into account the numerous decisions finding no association between vaccination and autism when 

confronted with a new claim asserting autism as an injury, and have informed such claimants early in the life of their 

case that the claim was not viable for just that reason. But I would also deem a non-Table claim asserting GBS after 

the flu vaccine as not requiring extensive proof on Althen prong one “can cause” matters, for the simple reason that 

the Program has repeatedly litigated the issue in favor of petitioners.
23

F.3d at 1358), it is still wise to do so.

G. Disposition of Case Without Hearing

I am resolving this claim (one of three included in the consolidated matters) on the papers, 

rather than by holding a hearing. The Vaccine Act and Rules not only contemplate but encourage 

special masters to decide petitions on the papers where (in the exercise of their discretion) they 

conclude that doing so will properly and fairly resolve the case. Section 12(d)(2)(D); Vaccine Rule 

8(d). The decision to rule on the record in lieu of hearing has been affirmed on appeal. Kreizenbeck 

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also 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 cases where special masters decided case on the papers in lieu of 

hearing and that decision was upheld). I am simply not required to hold a hearing in every matter, 

no matter the preferences of the parties. Hovey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 

397, 402–03 (1997) (determining that special master acted within 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

I. Varicella Reactivation and Relevant Varicella Vaccine Cases

Because the capacity of the varicella virus to become latent then reactivate is squarely 

placed into issue by Petitioners’ causation theory, some brief discussion of what is scientifically 

and medically known about the mechanisms involved in this process is warranted.

A VZV infection (which is often termed “chickenpox”) is caused by varicella – a highly 

contagious virus that impacts almost every person before adulthood. See Atlas of Pediatric 

Physical Diagnosis 444 (5th ed. 2007). Its initial symptoms, usually occurring after a 10–21 day 

incubation period, include fever, malaise and the itchy rash for which it is best known. Id. A VZV 

infection is usually self-limiting and mild, although severe and potentially-fatal complications may 

arise, such as secondary bacterial infections or neurologic impacts (encephalitis). Id. Varicella is 

especially dangerous to children and the immune-compromised. One form, “breakthrough” 

varicella, occurs in person who received the varicella vaccine but subsequently (42 days or more 

post-vaccination) incur a wild virus infection, and features a slightly different kind of presenting 

rash. Infectious Diseases (Varicella-Zoster Virus) in Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics 1581 (R. 

Kliegman et al., 20th ed. 2016) (“Nelson”).

A varicella infection is commonly diagnosed from clinical indicia, such as the presence of 

the rash commonly associated with it. Nelson at 1584. However, some laboratory testing can also 
24

confirm its presence. Evaluation of the virus’s presence from direct testing of skin lesions/vesicles 

is most common, although strain identification can also assist in distinguishing the wild virus from 

vaccine-associated strains. Id. It is commonly treated with the antiviral drug Acyclovir, although 

the drug’s cost, coupled with the low risk of complications, often result in it not being routinely 

prescribed. Id. It does not appear that gastrointestinal pain or sequelae are an understood feature 

or complication of a varicella infection. Id. at 1579-80.

One feature of VZV that distinguishes it from other viral infections is its capacity for 

latency and subsequent reactivation. Pearson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-9V, 2019 

WL 3852633, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 2019) (“varicella zoster reactivation is a relatively 

common ailment—approximately 1 million new cases are diagnosed annually in the United States, 

and 90% of these patients are immunocompetent”). After exposure to the virus in childhood, the 

immune system of most individuals is successful in eliminating it, but it often remains 

dormant/latent in two parts of the central nervous system: the ganglia adjacent to the spinal cord 

or base of the skull. Phillip S. LaRussa & Mona Marin, Textbook of Pediatrics: Chapter 253 

Varicella-Zoster Virus 1579 (20th ed. 2016). Thereafter, the virus can reactivate in adulthood, 

causing a varicella zoster infection, or “shingles,” which is characterized by a painful localized 

rash. Id. Although shingles usually resolves in a few weeks, it can have associated secondary 

symptoms, or lead in some cases to ongoing nerve pain or neuralgia. Pearson, 2019 WL 3852633, 

at *15. Only those who previously were infected with VZV can experience shingles, and it most 

commonly afflicts those over 50 (and thus the virus’s latency can be decades-long).

It remains unknown to medical science why the VZV remains latent for such lengthy 

periods of time. However, it has been determined that during dormancy, infected nerve cells 

continue to manufacture viral proteins, suggesting that rather than true latency, the dormant period 

might better be characterized as a chronic, if extremely low-level, active infection. Bjørn Grinde, 

Herpesviruses: Latency and Reactivation—Viral Strategies and Host Response, J. of Oral 

Microbiology (2013) (available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809354/). 

The immune system otherwise suppresses this ongoing, sub-clinical infectious process—

consistent with the fact that shingles is more common in those whose immune systems are 

compromised (whether due to aging, receipt of medical treatments known to be 

immunosuppressive, or psychologic stress). Shingles, Mayo Clinic (June 10, 2020, 5:17pm), 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shingles/symptoms-causes/syc-20353054.

Regardless, it is clear that shingles does not constitute merely a second “round” of chickenpox.

Here, Petitioners maintain that a varicella vaccine introduced VZV strains that (consistent 

with what is known about the wild virus’s reactivation and expression as shingles) self-reactivated 

in a consistent manner, manifesting as chickenpox and triggering some other secondary symptoms.

I have found no causation-in-fact decisions in which a petitioner established injury due to a

reactivated varicella infection introduced by prior varicella vaccination. At most, petitioners have 
25

successfully demonstrated that the varicella vaccine directly caused an injury—including a 

subsequent varicella infection.23 See, e.g., Hayes v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-804V, 

2019 WL 3821992 (Fed. Cl. May 14, 2019) (varicella vaccine conceded by Respondent to have 

caused varicella infection); Haigler v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-508V, 2013 WL 

5428103 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 5, 2013) (varicella vaccine caused encephalopathy); Casey v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 97-612V, 2005 WL 3597263 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 

2005) (varicella vaccine caused encephalomyeloradiculo-neuropathy). But in such cases, onset 

from vaccination to injury was a matter of a few weeks—not seven years, as alleged here. See, 

e.g., Hayes, 2019 WL 3821992 (onset of infection two to three weeks post-vaccination);24 Haigler, 

2013 WL 5428103, at *17–18 (onset of encephalopathy within two weeks of receipt of varicella 

vaccine); Casey, 2005 WL 3597263, at *1–2 (onset of neurologic injuries began four to six weeks 

post-vaccination).

There are, however, two Table claim variants recognizing varicella reactivation after 

vaccination as a compensable injury (although Petitioners do not advance a Table claim). See 42 

C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(X)(C). The Table claim version most relevant to this case25 is titled 

“disseminated varicella vaccine-strain viral disease,” and requires the claimant to prove either 

“varicella illness that involves the skin beyond the dermatome in which the vaccination was 

given,” or “disease caused by vaccine-strain varicella in another organ.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(11).

Significantly, there is no Table timeframe in which post-vaccination onset for reactivation must 

be established—although if the claimant cannot demonstrate the presence of a vaccine-strain of 

the varicella, then onset must be established to have occurred within 7–42 days of vaccination. 

Id.26

I am aware of only two published decisions in which a claimant received compensation for 

a Table varicella reactivation claim of the aforementioned kind. But in both instances, onset 

occurred far sooner than alleged herein. See, e.g., Hayes v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

23 In comparison, Petitioners have been denied entitlement where Respondent was able to establish that a reactivated 

varicella infection was a more likely alternative cause of the claimed injury than a subsequent different vaccine—thus 

acknowledging the injuries that reactivation could cause. See, e.g., Dunn v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-

1506V, 2020 WL 1243237 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 19, 2020) (Tdap vaccine not responsible for petitioner’s 

meningoencephalitis, but instead Respondent established preponderantly that varicella zoster virus reactivation was 

causal).

24 The ruling on entitlement in Hayes does not set forth such facts, which are instead found in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report conceding entitlement. See Hayes Rule 4(c) Report, dated May 9, 2019 (ECF No. 24).

25 The other varicella reactivation Table claim involves injury manifesting as shingles, which does not capture what 

A.Y. is alleged to have experienced. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(12).

26 In addition, if testing reveals the presence of a wild-type viral strain or some other non-vaccine strain, then the Table 

claim fails entirely. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(11).
26

18-804V, 2019 WL 3821992 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2019) (Table injury conceded where 

petitioner experienced chickenpox 18 days after receipt of varicella vaccination); Garner v. Sec'y 

of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1166V, 2018 WL 1835549 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 2018)

(Respondent conceded varicella reactivation Table claim based on evidence of injured child’s 

strokes and hemiparalysis with onset within ten days of vaccination). And neither of these cases 

involved the kind of sequelae (GI-related pain and behavioral outbursts, associated with that pain 

or not) alleged herein.

II. Petitioners Have Not Established that A.Y. Experienced Chickenpox in January 

2015 That was Attributable to Reactivation of the Varicella Strains Contained in the 

Vaccine He Received in 2007

As in many Vaccine Program cases, identifying whether the “injury” alleged actually 

occurred is critical to this claim’s resolution. Broekelschen, 618 F.3d at 1346. Although Petitioners 

point to certain injurious secondary harms (A.Y.’s worsened behavioral conduct, abdominal pain, 

and skin rashes), all are linked to a purported varicella reactivation starting in January 2015 and 

manifesting as chickenpox,27 that was in turn attributable to a vaccine received seven or eight years 

before. The evidence in this case does not preponderate in favor of such a finding.

Petitioners’ injury contentions arise from accepted medical science concerning wild 

varicella infections generally, and their capacity for latency and subsequent reactivation. But

Petitioners go a step further: they argue that the varicella vaccine itself could introduce a sufficient 

amount of the virus to be latent for years and then subsequently “reactivate” (here, activate for the 

first time), thereafter having the same injurious effect as a first-time wild virus infection. Although 

the mechanism for how latency in this context occurs remain poorly understood, I credit the 

reliability of Petitioners’ general contention that after an initial infection (typically manifesting as 

chickenpox), the varicella virus can lay dormant (or at least act in a low-grade/chronic infectious 

manner) for long periods of time. Reliable evidence has also been offered that viral strains 

contained in the varicella vaccine might have a similar latency effect (although it is hardly 

established herein that receipt of a viral strain via vaccination is comparable to a wild virus 

infection). Indeed, other claimants have obtained entitlement based upon the argument that a 

varicella vaccine “caused” subsequent varicella-like symptoms (although not in a years-long 

timeframe, and thus not after the lengthy dormancy presented in this case). See, e.g., Hayes, 2019 

WL 3821992. The fact that a Table claim exists also suggests that reliable scientific evidence 

27 The record in this case does not support Petitioners’ alternative contention that A.Y. experienced such symptoms in 

June 2014, and therefore I date onset as of no earlier than January 2015, since there is some record support for that 

determination. In addition, the evidence offered in this case regarding varicella reactivation after latency supports the 

conclusion that A.Y.’s January 2015 symptoms were characteristic of chickenpox—not shingles. Children do not 

commonly experience shingles, moreover, and Petitioners do not allege A.Y.’s presenting symptoms constituted 

shingles. See generally Pet. at 1–3; Opp.; Reply.
27

substantiates some possibility of post-vaccination reactivation (although little such evidence was 

offered in this case).

But it has not been preponderantly established in this case that A.Y. likely had any active 

varicella infection as of January 2015, manifesting as chickenpox—whether from a new, wild virus 

infection or reactivation of the viral strains introduced by vaccine. At best, the medical record 

contains evidence of a rash or marks suggesting that A.Y. might have had chickenpox at that time, 

but the record does not confirm the initial, equivocal diagnosis, nor were these marks accompanied 

by any of the other presenting indicia of a varicella infection, such as fever. In addition, the record 

includes statements from S.Y. that the marks rapidly cleared up (which she attributes to antiviral 

medications A.Y. was administered even before he purportedly showed viral reactivation at this 

time). Thus, even if these symptoms were initial evidence of a “new” varicella infection, the record 

establishes that they dissipated in days (thus also allowing for the conclusion that the injury’s 

severity did not meet the Act’s six-month requirement). Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i). Indeed, later, 

close-in-time intervening medical records from 2015 make no mention of any bout with

chickenpox earlier that year. And although there are records from the fall of 2015 suggesting, 

without explanation, recurrences (which are not consistent with a varicella infection’s usual course 

in any event), these have not been corroborated.

Furthermore—and unlike cases in which an injured party manifested symptoms associated 

with varicella reactivation, like neuralgias or encephalopathies—A.Y. did not display symptoms 

after his purported 2015 winter manifestation of a rash that could be so defined. It has not been 

established herein that recurrent abdominal pain of the kind A.Y. is purported to have experienced 

is a varicella hallmark or anticipated sequela. The record also reveals that A.Y. received antiviral 

medications intended to treat a varicella infection, like Acyclovir, throughout his life, suggesting 

a prior concern for earlier infections (which if also attributed to vaccine reactivation would not be 

a basis for recovery under the Act’s three-year limitations period). No blood testing, antibody 

findings, or other serologic evidence has been offered to corroborate that a varicella infection 

existed as of the winter of 2015. And I find significant Dr. Tachdjian’s treating opinion, rendered 

in December 2015, that certain test results, such as antibody findings, were not consistent with the 

conclusion that A.Y. had experienced a varicella infection. Ex. 26 at 3.

In addition, the record does not preponderantly establish that the chickenpox-like skin 

symptoms A.Y. is alleged to have experienced in 2015 were likely attributable to a reactivation of 

the varicella virus components of the vaccine A.Y. received seven-plus years before. The strongest 

evidence for reactivation is found in Dr. Gershon’s late-2015 biopsy review, in which she reports 

finding varicella vaccine strains from A.Y.’s intestinal biopsy. But these findings suffer from 

reliability problems. For one, the report setting forth this conclusion appears to have been created 

two years after Dr. Gershon’s findings (although the contemporaneous record itself from 2015 

does corroborate that Dr. Gershon considered the biopsy as alleged). More importantly, no 
28

substantive back-up data for the findings has been filed, making it impossible to confirm the 

accuracy of these representations. And Petitioners have offered no other evidence that would 

corroborate their assumption that evidence of the presence of vaccine-strain varicella virus in the 

gut makes it more likely that A.Y.’s January 2015 symptoms were associated with reactivation.

Thus, the assertion that the viral strains found by Dr. Gershon match the vaccine’s 

components, but not the wild virus itself, has not been substantiated in the record filed in this case 

(which as noted above has numerous holes and gaps). And even if the existence of strains 

associated with vaccination had been preponderantly established, Petitioners have not also 

established that reactivation is the most likely explanation for A.Y.’s symptoms months before –

as opposed to an intervening wild virus infection.

III. Petitioners did not Preponderantly Support Their Contention that the Timeframe 

From Vaccination to Purported Reactivation Onset was Medically Acceptable

Even if my prior analysis is incorrect, the third Althen prong28 proves an insurmountable

roadblock to the success of Petitioners’ claim. 

As the Court of Federal Claims has recognized, a timeframe from vaccination to injury 

that is not medically acceptable—whether too short or too long—eliminates the possibility of a 

favorable entitlement award, even where the first two causation prongs can be established. See 

de Bazan, 539 F.3d at 1352. And the degree to which the proposed timeframe “misses the mark” 

matters – especially if onset occurs well after receipt of the vaccine. As Judge Bruggink observed 

in Hennessey v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 91 Fed. Cl. 126 (2010), there are some 

proposed timeframes that are so long that all concepts of medical reasonableness and 

acceptability fly out the window. Hennessey, 91 Fed. Cl. at 142 (“this theory accounts for 

symptoms which do not occur until years after vaccination, exacerbated by some other 

environmental trigger. . . [under this theory] it would be virtually impossible to determine that 

the vaccine, and not some other environmental condition, was the original triggering event”). 

As a result, a too-long timeframe from vaccination to injury threatens to “define away” the third 

prong, by permitting recovery for any post-vaccination harm, no matter how remote in time. Id.

28 I do not address the other Althen prongs in detail herein, but note that, with respect to the second “did cause” prong, 

my injury finding precludes a determination that the varicella vaccine likely caused harm via reactivation, since I have 

not found that A.Y. likely had chickenpox in January 2015, and/or that the symptoms he had at that time can reliably 

be attributed to vaccine strain varicella reactivation. The evidence that varicella strains in the varicella vaccine could

reactivate is somewhat stronger, although it has not been preponderantly shown that they would manifest as a firsttime varicella infection. And in any event, because Petitioners cannot demonstrate that seven years post-vaccination 

is a medically acceptable timeframe for reactivation of vaccine-introduced viral strains, it does not matter that some 

reliable evidence (largely not filed herein but derived from my review of other cases) supports the “can cause” Althen 

prong.
29

This is such a case. Admittedly, the Gershon Article (which I note was not even contained 

in Dr. Gershon’s submissions, although filed with Dr. Honaker’s report and filings) supports the 

contention that the varicella vaccine may have viral reactivation effects comparable to the wild 

virus, although none of the references cited in the Gershon Article for this proposition were 

themselves filed.29 But Petitioners have offered no evidence establishing what period of time from 

vaccination to reactivation would be medically acceptable, making it extremely difficult for me to 

find that more than seven years (the relevant timeframe in this case) is acceptable. Indeed, the 

varicella vaccine (which includes a live but attenuated varicella virus strain) is intended to be less 

virulent than the wild virus,

30 so it cannot simply be assumed that the same latency periods apply 

to both. See, e.g., Varivax, FDA (Oct. 19, 2018), https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-bloodbiologics/vaccines/varivax. (package insert for varicella vaccine describing contents). The 

timeframe is so great in this case that the possibility of an intervening wild virus infection cannot 

be discounted (even in the presence of the biopsy findings).31 It cannot simply be assumed that 

any post-vaccination evidence of a varicella infection after receipt of the vaccine is due to 

reactivation.

Petitioners’ timeframe argument also suffers when A.Y.’s individual circumstances are 

factored into the consideration. In this case, Petitioners allege a seven-plus year gap from 

vaccination to clinical manifestation of reactivation. During this period, A.Y. received a dizzying 

plethora of treatments for his ASD, and was repeatedly said to be experiencing a wide variety of 

symptoms—including autism-related developmental problems and gastrointestinal symptoms, 

sometimes manifesting as abdominal pain. See, e.g., Ex. 20 at 1–2. Some of these could well have 

been stimulated by the intrusive treatments he received from 2007 to 2015 (many of which lack 

general medical community or ASD treater acceptance). But whatever their cause, it cannot on 

this record be concluded that A.Y. experienced no possible intervening triggers for either a first29 My cursory review of the three most relevant footnoted, but unfiled, articles, however, does not identify strong 

support for Dr. Gershon’s assertions. Gershon Article at S119, n.31–33. For example, the article referenced in support 

of the possibility of viremia to explain how vaccine-containing viral components could cause subsequent disease later 

is a single-patient case study nearly 30 years old, and involves an unquestionably immune-compromised child. I. 

Kamiya et al., Viremic Phase in Leukemic Child After Live Varicella Vaccination, 89 Pediatrics 147 (1992). Another 

more recent article’s abstract reveals its authors’ conclusion that varicella vaccination reduces the likelihood of viral 

reactivation in later life. S. Weinmann et al., Incidence and Clinical Characteristics of Herpes Zoster Among Children 

in the Varicella Vaccine Era, 208 J. Infectious Disease 1859 (2013). None appear to stand strongly for the proposition 

that a vaccine administered years before could have the same reactivation potential as the wild virus.

30 An attenuated vaccine is “a vaccine prepared from live microorganisms or viruses cultured under adverse conditions 

leading to loss of their virulence but retention of their ability to induce protective immunity.” Attenuated Vaccine, 

Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=116493.

31 I also note that Petitioners have assumed that the findings of what are represented to be vaccine-strain varicella virus 

in A.Y’s intestinal biopsy must explain the rash symptoms he began manifesting several month before – but without 

demonstrating (whether from persuasive expert opinion or other reliable scientific and medical evidence) why such 

evidence makes it preponderantly likely that the two are connected. 
30

time infection or vaccine reactivation (assuming it did occur) that could not also explain his 

purported symptoms from 2015 onward. 

At bottom, the timeframe in question (from vaccination to onset) is so lengthy that absent 

very reliable scientific evidence linking the varicella vaccine with reactivation years later, I 

cannot find that its medical acceptability has been preponderantly established. This case stands 

in marked contrast to even the few published Table claim cases directly involving vaccine-strain 

varicella reactivation, none of which featured timeframes exceeding three weeks postvaccination. Hayes, 2019 WL 3821992; Garner, 2018 WL 1835549. While it may be somewhat 

plausible that a varicella vaccine could plant the seed for a viral reactivation years later, a claimant 

hoping to succeed in establishing entitlement based on such a novel, years-long timeframe would 

have to do a far better job substantiating that assertion than Petitioners have achieved in this case.

IV. Petitioners Did Not Establish Their Significant Aggravation Claim

It is somewhat difficult to discern the exact nature of Petitioners’ significant aggravation 

claim, but it appears that they maintain that A.Y.’s alleged reactivation of varicella in January 2015

was followed by “significantly more prominent GI symptoms and behavioral issues.” Reply at 4. 

But too many of the Loving prongs have not been preponderantly established to find in favor of 

Petitioners on this alternative claim.32

First, many of the secondary symptoms that Petitioners claim were aggravated by A.Y.’s 

purported reactivated, vaccine-caused infection were either inadequately substantiated by the 

medical record, or cannot be concluded to have become worse post-reactivation. Thus, there is 

ample medical record evidence that A.Y. experienced abdominal pain well before onset of the 

alleged reactivation in January 2015. See, e.g., Ex 21 at 606–07 (noting “at least one pain episode 

a day” and “patchy erythema” in A.Y.’s small intestine on November 4, 2013), 616 (noting A.Y. 

had a “cycle of abdominal pain” on September 10, 2013); see also Ex. 21 at 596–97, and Ex. 26 

at 6 (“at approximately 4 years of age, Andrew started experiencing significant aggression which 

was later determined to be from his GI pain”). But the medical record does not establish that these 

symptoms in fact worsened after January 2015, despite some conclusory assertions to the contrary 

by some of Petitioners’ experts. See, e.g., Ex. 21 at 548. Indeed, I cannot ascertain from this 

somewhat-incomplete record how to compare A.Y.’s pre versus post-reactivation health overall. 

As a result, Loving prongs two and three have not been preponderantly established. The record is 

simply too full of evidence of ongoing medical problems to possibly tease out how any of A.Y.’s 

32 Although Loving focuses on comparing the injured party’s condition before and after vaccination, this claim 

compares A.Y.’s condition pre and post-reactivation, with virtually none of his purported aggravated symptoms 

having existed before receipt of the varicella vaccine in 2007 (when A.Y. was just a year old). But because Vaccine 

Program claims only begin as of onset - and thus any significant aggravation claim accrues not on the literal date of 

vaccination, but some time thereafter, even if by only a few days—I do not find that this distinction alone rules out a 

significant aggravation claim herein.
31

purported post-reactivation harms were appreciably different from his condition before January 

2015.

Second, Petitioners have not demonstrated how a reactivated varicella infection could even 

cause worsening of the kind alleged in this case. The primary symptoms alleged to have worsened 

are abdominal pain and behavioral problems—neither of which have been shown to be medically 

associated with a first-time varicella infection. Indeed, they are not even the kinds of symptoms 

known to be potential (and dangerous) secondary effects of a varicella infection, like the kinds of 

serious neurologic complications that have been deemed compensable injuries attributable to 

varicella. See, e.g., Haigler, 2013 WL 5428103 (varicella vaccine caused encephalopathy); Casey, 

2005 WL 3597263 (varicella vaccine caused encephalomyeloradiculo-neuropathy). Rather, it 

seems to have been the assumption of certain of A.Y.’s treaters that abdominal pain could be 

associated with an existing varicella infection in the gut – an assumption that the record does not 

bear out in the least.33 Thus, Loving prong four has also not been satisfied.

Third, there is ample unrebutted record evidence that some of A.Y.’s GI symptoms could 

just as likely be attributable to the panoply of treatments he received. Petitioners adopted a 

blunderbuss approach in seeking to treat A.Y.’s autism and other conditions that certain of their 

treaters, like Dr. Krigsman, have associated with ASD, like gastrointestinal problems (even though 

these associations have been questioned from a scientific/medical standpoint). See Cedillo v. Sec’y 

of Health & Human Servs., No. 98-916V, 2009 WL 331968, at *1, *102, *108–09 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Feb. 12, 2009) (challenging the scientific reliability of Dr. Krigsman’s (ASD)-associated 

enteritis theory). Given the variety of medications A.Y. received and dietary changes mandated 

for him, it cannot be discounted that some GI symptoms he experienced could be so attributed (and 

Petitioners certainly did not prove the contrary). Petitioners therefore cannot preponderantly 

establish that any GI problems, whether before or after purported onset of A.Y.’s chickenpox 

symptoms, were more likely relevant to that injury versus the nature of the treatments he received.

Claims that A.Y.’s behavioral problems worsened due to varicella reactivation from his 

2007 vaccination are even less tenable. Dr. Robinson, Petitioners’ autism treating expert, has 

admitted that A.Y. displayed increasing behavioral problems before he first manifested a skin rash 

in early 2015. Robinson Rep. at 3. As with A.Y.’s GI complaints, I do not discern in this record 

that A.Y.’s behavioral issues were in fact worse after purported reactivation; rather, the overall 

record suggests that his behavioral problems were more likely attributable to his ASD, and that 

they waxed and waned independent of his alleged chickenpox symptoms. Even more 

compellingly, there is no support in the Program for the conclusion that any vaccine could, directly 

or otherwise, cause or exacerbate existing ASD-related symptoms, let alone VZV through 

33 This assumption also seems congruent with the view of treaters like Dr. Krigsman about the existence of ASDassociated enteritis—a diagnosis that is not medically accepted, as discussed below and above.
32

reactivation. See Pope v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-078V, 2017 WL 2460503, at 

*21–23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 1, 2017) (discussing lack of support for claims that ASD can be 

significantly aggravated by a vaccine). Indeed, there is no reliable scientific or medical evidence 

offered in this case that a first-time varicella infection could make existing ASD-associated 

behavioral problems worse (beyond the logical conclusion that pain or other symptoms associated 

with the reactivation might be difficult for an ASD-diagnosed child to process and cope with).

Overall, the medical records filed in this case do not establish a marked difference between 

A.Y.’s condition pre or post-alleged reactivation, nor have Petitioners established that (a) varicella 

reactivation could worsen GI and ASD-associated behavioral problems or (b) that it did so here. 

Thus, the significant aggravation claim has not been preponderantly established.

V. This Case was Properly Resolved Without a Trial

In ruling on the record, I am choosing not to hold a hearing. Determining how best to 

resolve a case is a matter that lies generally within my discretion, but I shall explain my reasoning 

nevertheless.

Prior decisions have recognized that a special master’s discretion in deciding whether to 

conduct an evidentiary 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 that rule also includes the obligation of creation of a record “sufficient to allow review 

of the special master’s decision.” Id. Thus, the fact that a claim is legitimately disputed, such that 

the special master must exercise his intellectual faculties in order to decide a matter, is not itself 

grounds for a trial (for if it were, trials would be required in every disputed case). Special masters 

are expressly empowered to resolve fact disputes without a hearing—although they should only 

so act if a party has been given the proper “full and fair” chance to prove their claim.

In this case, no hearing was required to resolve fairly the present claim. My decision to 

dismiss this case turns primarily on Petitioners’ inability to show that a seven-year latency for 

varicella reactivation after vaccination was medically acceptable, or that such reactivation could 

cause the symptoms alleged. Although Petitioner offered three expert opinions, only one (Dr. 

Gershon’s) even went to the issue of causation, and it was facially insubstantial (and said nothing 

about the Althen prong three issue). Giving that opinion as much credit as possible, as I have 

attempted to do, was not enough to carry the day for Petitioners—and no hearing would have 

made a different result possible. Petitioners have had ample opportunity to substantiate the 

claim—and were given adequate warnings by me that issues raised by the lengthy gap between 

vaccination and onset would determine the claim’s outcome.
33

The fact that Respondent offered no experts of his own did not mandate a hearing, or 

require me to give Petitioners’ arguments (and/or the testimony of their experts) a credence that 

they did not merit. I am never obligated to accept blindly the say-so of any expert, pro or con, 

and I was able to draw on my experience in Vaccine Act cases generally (as well as consider 

some relevant prior cases discussed above) to ascertain the significant limitations undermining 

the expert opinions. Petitioners simply have not proven that a seven-year lag is medically 

acceptable. None of the expert support offered for their claim was especially robust - one expert 

(Dr. Robinson) conceded a central weakness in the significant aggravation claim, one (Dr. 

Honaker) disavowed his expertise to opine in the case, and the third (Dr. Gershon) did not bother 

to offer the medical literature most supportive of her theory. The evidence simply did not even 

rise to a threshold preponderant showing that would suggest the need for Respondent expert input.

Admittedly, this case presented some novel issues (here relating to onset and postvaccination timeframe)—but that fact alone also does not necessitate a hearing, as the Federal 

Circuit has observed. See D’Tiole v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 726 F. App’x 809, 812 

(Fed. Cir. 2018). I was able to evaluate the preponderant strength of Petitioners’ claim by review 

of the record, the briefs, and the expert reports filed, and could fairly ascertain issues with the

claim even though it advanced a theory that has not been evaluated extensively in past written

decisions. It is conceivable that a claimant armed with better literature shining a light on the 

latency potential of varicella strains in the varicella vaccine, or more persuasive experts with the 

background needed to offer a reliable and persuasive opinion, could mount a case that would 

raise enough fact questions to mandate a hearing—but not so here.34 Petitioners were given a fair 

chance to substantiate their claim.

CONCLUSION

Petitioners base their claim on a single, reasonably-sound medical concept specific to the 

wild varicella virus and its scientifically-demonstrated capacity for latency and reactivation. Some 

reliable evidence supports the contention that the viral strains in the varicella vaccine may also 

have latency potential. But Petitioners have not offered sufficient reliable support in this case for 

me to determine (in ruling on a non-Table claim) that the attenuated viral strains of this vaccine 

could activate years later in the pathologic manner alleged. Moreover, the facts relevant to A.Y.’s 

34 My determination not to hold a hearing was also influenced in minor part by the undeniable fact that this case 

presents circumstances common to many other ASD injury cases previously litigated in the Program, in which wellmeaning parents pursue questionable medical treatments that may themselves have unpredictable complications, while 

also insisting that vaccination played some role in the child’s condition. See, e.g., Anderson, 2016 WL 8256278, at *5 

n.7. The causation theory in this case has numerous “echoes” with such previously-litigated claims—in particular to

the extent it sought to establish that certain aspects of A.Y.’s ASD-related behaviors were worsened by the purported 

varicella reactivation—and those parallels underscored for me why resolution on the papers was preferable to hearing.
34

history do not permit me to conclude that he either did experience a varicella infection attributable 

to vaccination, or thatsuch an infection worsened existing health problems from which he suffered. 

And I do not find that any of A.Y.’s ASD-associated behavioral problems could possibly have 

been worsened by a purported varicella infection due to viral reactivation.

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review 

(see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk shall enter judgment in accord with this 

decision.35 Petitioners are also directed to file a status report on or before August 28, 2020 

indicating what action they wish to take with respect to the remaining two claims in this case, in 

light of my Decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

35 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their 

right to seek review.