NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PITEY MORGAN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2020-2107

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:15-vv-01137-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.

______________________

Decided: March 24, 2021

______________________

SYLVIA CHIN-CAPLAN, Law Office of Sylvia ChinCaplan, LLC, Boston, MA, for petitioner-appellant. Also 

represented by TIMOTHY MASON.

 ZOE WADE, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. Also represented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, C.

SALVATORE D'ALESSIO, HEATHER LYNN PEARLMAN,

CATHARINE E. REEVES.

 ______________________

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/24/2021
2 MORGAN v. HHS

Before DYK, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Pitey Morgan filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–300aa-34 (“Vaccine Act”), 

claiming that an influenza vaccination resulted in serious 

neurological injury. The chief special master in the Vaccine Program’s Office of Special Masters denied his claim 

for compensation, and the Court of Federal Claims sustained that decision. We affirm.

I

A

Mr. Morgan has an extensive medical history from well 

before his influenza vaccination in 2012. See Morgan v. 

Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1137V, 2019 WL 

7498665, at *1–7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 4, 2019) (“Special Master’s Decision”). The evidence showed that Mr. 

Morgan had numerous preexisting conditions, including 

persistent lower back pain, lower extremity radiculopathy, 

multi-level degenerative disc disease, lumbar spondylosis, 

and prostatitis. Nonetheless, the special master agreed 

with Mr. Morgan that his neurological injury did not predate his vaccination. Id. at *17.

Mr. Morgan received a flu vaccination on October 16, 

2012. Following his vaccination, Mr. Morgan sought treatment from numerous physicians for medical issues. The 

reports from those physicians reveal that the assessments 

of Mr. Morgan’s illness shifted over time as his symptoms 

matured and as the treating physicians received a more 

complete picture of his medical condition.

The day after his vaccination, Mr. Morgan saw a urologist, Dr. Arthur Golin, complaining of urination issues. 

Id. at *3. Mr. Morgan told Dr. Golin that his urination 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 3

issues had begun during the previous year but had accelerated during the past two and a half months. Mr. Morgan

also reported weakness and numbness in his lower extremities. Dr. Golin assessed his condition as urinary retention 

with a possible neurologic component.

Six days later, Mr. Morgan saw Dr. Scott Greenwald, 

complaining of lower back pain. Mr. Morgan reported that 

the pain was radiating down both of his legs and that he 

was experiencing numbness in his calves. Dr. Greenwald 

treated Mr. Morgan with a lumbar steroid injection.

The next day, Mr. Morgan was taken to an emergency 

room after losing strength in, and the ability to ambulate, 

both of his legs. Dr. Christopher Hummel assessed possible cauda equina syndrome and epidural hematoma in 

light of Mr. Morgan’s recent steroid injection. Dr. Hummel 

ordered an MRI of Mr. Morgan’s spinal cord.

Later that day, Mr. Morgan was transferred to a neighboring hospital where he was examined by Dr. Christopher 

Marquart. A physical examination revealed that Mr. Morgan had poor sensory reception corresponding to the T12 

and L1 vertebrae. Id. at *4. Upon reviewing Mr. Morgan’s 

most recent MRI results, Dr. Marquart observed evidence 

of nerve root clumping at the conus (i.e., the base of the 

spinal cord), leading him to suspect that Mr. Morgan was 

experiencing transverse myelitis (“TM”)1 or some other 

acute, neuro-inflammatory process. Dr. Marquart admitted Mr. Morgan to the intensive care unit to ensure that 

“he [did] not have any type of ascending paralysis with the 

recent flu vaccination.” Special Master’s Decision at *4.

1 Myelitis is inflammation of the spinal cord. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 1268 (28th ed. 2006). Transverse

myelitis is inflammation across the entire thickness of only 

one or two segments of the spinal cord. Id.

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 03/24/2021
4 MORGAN v. HHS

Dr. Roni Devlin, an infectious disease specialist, examined Mr. Morgan the following day and ordered another

MRI examination. That MRI revealed swelling in the spinal cord from the T8 vertebra to the lower tip of the spinal 

cord. Dr. Devlin assessed myelitis of indeterminate etiology. He noted that “[c]ase reports of myelitis following vaccination have certainly been reported, but rarely.” Id.

Two days later, Mr. Morgan was evaluated by Dr. 

Larry Wahl, who noted that Mr. Morgan’s difficulties with

his lower extremities seemed to reach a critical point the

day after the October 23 steroid injection. Dr. Wahl 

reached a differential diagnosis of a viral infection, arachnoiditis, and TM, but he expressed skepticism about TM 

given the nature of the swelling in Mr. Morgan’s spinal 

cord.

Mr. Morgan was discharged from the hospital on October 29, 2012. By that time, he had recovered the ability to 

stand, bear weight, and walk short distances with a 

walker. However, he continued to experience numbness 

and tingling in his lower extremities. During a follow-up 

examination on November 15, 2012, Dr. Marquart reiterated his belief that Mr. Morgan had probably experienced 

myelitis as a “reaction to his flu vaccine for lack of a better 

explanation.” Id. A third MRI showed improvement in the 

appearance of the spinal cord.

On December 13, 2012, Mr. Morgan was examined by 

Dr. Douglas Gelb at the University of Michigan Neurology 

Clinic. Dr. Gelb proposed that Mr. Morgan had suffered

from either an isolated episode of TM or the first instance 

of a recurring, central nervous system disease, such as 

multiple sclerosis or neuromyelitis optica (“NMO”).2 

2 Neuromyelitis optica is characterized by the demyelination of the optic nerve and the spinal cord. Dorland’s 

Medical Dictionary 1249 (33rd ed. 2020). Demyelination 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 5

Special Master’s Decision at *5. Dr. Gelb ordered an NMO 

antibodies test, which returned a negative result but with 

the qualification that a negative result did not necessarily 

preclude a diagnosis of NMO.

Mr. Morgan’s condition improved from late 2012 into 

early 2013. He recovered strength in his lower extremities

and did not experience any new symptoms.

In early 2013, however, Mr. Morgan’s condition once 

again began to deteriorate. An examination by Dr. Wahl 

revealed decreased strength in both of Mr. Morgan’s legs. 

Dr. Wahl ordered an MRI, and the results showed expanding lesions in the thoracic section of the spinal cord, the 

appearance of which was suggestive of TM. By June 2013, 

Mr. Morgan had lost further strength in his lower extremities and could no longer stand on his own. On July 23, 

2013, Dr. Ivan Landon classified Mr. Morgan as paraplegic 

and concluded that Mr. Morgan had “suffered at least one, 

maybe two, relapses” and “was likely suffering from a polyphasic TM.” Id.

From July 2013 through June 2014, Mr. Morgan saw 

occasional improvements in his condition while completing 

a treatment and rehabilitation program. Id. at *6. Despite 

those occasional improvements, Dr. Landon observed that 

Mr. Morgan’s condition was generally deteriorating as he 

continued to experience relapses. By June 2014, Mr. Morgan was restricted to a wheelchair and began complaining

of issues with his upper extremities.

On August 15, 2014, Mr. Morgan saw Dr. Gelb again. 

An examination revealed that Mr. Morgan’s lower 

occurs when myelin, the protective coating on nerve cells, 

is damaged. Id. at 480. Symptoms of neuromyelitis optica 

often include changes in vision, flaccid paralysis of the extremities, and sensory and genitourinary disturbances. Id.

at 1249.

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 03/24/2021
6 MORGAN v. HHS

extremities were completely immobile. Dr. Gelb was unsure whether Mr. Morgan’s clinical deterioration “was due 

to [a] new episode of spinal cord inflammation, or simply 

some systemic illness exacerbating his deficits from his initial episode.” Id. Dr. Gelb judged that the former was 

more likely because of the severity of Mr. Morgan’s new 

symptoms. Dr. Gelb ordered MRIs of Mr. Morgan’s spine 

and brain, as well as another NMO antibodies test. The 

antibodies test was negative. The spinal MRI revealed a 

loss of volume starting at the T8 vertebra and extending 

down to the conus, likely caused by prior inflammation. 

The spinal MRI also showed signal changes and abnormal 

enhancements at the T2 vertebra that were indicative of 

spinal inflammation. The brain MRI revealed “nonspecific 

small areas of nonenhancing T2 signal prolongation in predominantly left supratentorial white matter,” possibly as a 

result of prior inflammation at the T2 vertebra. Id.

On November 26, 2014, Dr. Robert Pace of the University of Michigan Multiple Sclerosis Clinic further evaluated 

Mr. Morgan’s MRIs. Regarding the brain MRI, Dr. Pace 

noted that the scans did not reveal patterns that were suggestive of multiple sclerosis. “However, there is T2 hyperintensity in the fourth ventricle surrounding the cerebral 

aqueduct. This is of unclear significance, but can be seen 

in [NMO] spectrum . . . .” Id. Based on his review of the 

laboratory tests and imaging studies, Dr. Pace diagnosed 

Mr. Morgan with “longitudinal myelitis due to [NMO], 

sero-negative.” Id. at *7. 

In an August 15, 2015, visit to Dr. Pace, Mr. Morgan

reported persistent paralysis in his lower extremities and 

numbness starting at, and extending below, his middle 

back. Dr. Pace ordered additional MRIs. The brain MRI 

revealed that the “signal hyperintensities located [near the 

ventricles] of the brain [had been] stable since January.” 

Id. The spinal MRI revealed no abnormalities. Dr. Pace 

reported a differential diagnosis of relapsing-remitting 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 7

multiple sclerosis, NMO, and flaccid paralysis of the lower 

extremities.

On April 20, 2016, Mr. Morgan visited Dr. Pace for a 

third time. Mr. Morgan was still confined to a wheelchair 

but had not developed any new or worsening symptoms. 

Following an examination, Dr. Pace once again diagnosed 

Mr. Morgan’s condition as “most likely seronegative 

[NMO].” Id.

In April 2017, Dr. Pace examined Mr. Morgan for a 

fourth and final time. The examination revealed positive 

progress with Mr. Morgan’s lower extremities. An MRI 

showed no evidence of new or enhanced lesions on the spinal cord. Dr. Pace’s differential diagnosis listed NMO, 

acute TM, paralytic syndrome, and spinal stenosis of the 

cervical region.

B

Mr. Morgan filed a petition seeking compensation under the Vaccine Act. He alleged that he had developed longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis (“LETM”)3

caused by the flu vaccine he received in 2012. At a January 

2019 hearing, the special master heard testimony from 

both sides’ expert witnesses.

Mr. Morgan’s expert, Dr. Carlo Tornatore, testified

that Mr. Morgan had developed remitting and relapsing

LETM, not NMO or NMO spectrum disorder (“NMOSD”).4 

3 Longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis is 

characterized by bilateral spinal cord inflammation (i.e., 

transverse myelitis) that extends vertically through three 

or more vertebral segments. D. Karussis et al., The Spectrum of Post-Vaccination Inflammatory CNS Demyelinating Syndromes, Autoimmunity Reviews 1, 6 (2013). 4 The term neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder

was first introduced in 2007 to cover patient groups with 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 7 Filed: 03/24/2021
8 MORGAN v. HHS

Special Master’s Decision at *8. Dr. Tornatore described 

TM/LETM as a syndrome in which an immune-mediated 

process causes inflammation of the spinal cord, resulting 

in scarring and neural injury. That inflammatory process, 

according to Dr. Tornatore, is known to cause symptoms 

that align with Mr. Morgan’s symptoms, including weakness in limbs, sensory alterations, and autonomic dysfunction. 

Dr. Tornatore stated that Mr. Morgan did not meet the 

diagnostic criteria for NMOSD. Because Mr. Morgan

tested negative for NMO-related antibodies, Dr. Tornatore 

testified, he needed to exhibit an additional clinical characteristic besides acute myelitis to justify a diagnosis of 

NMOSD, but his medical records did not reveal such a 

characteristic. Id. at *9. Dr. Tornatore added that in his 

view Mr. Morgan did not fit the typical demographic for 

NMOSD and that, although the remitting-relapsing nature 

of Mr. Morgan’s disease did not fit the typical TM case, TM 

could be polyphasic in certain individuals.

As for causation, Dr. Tornatore testified that the close 

connection in time between Mr. Morgan’s vaccination and 

the onset of his symptoms meant that Mr. Morgan’s vaccination was more likely than not the cause of his LETM. 

Id. at *7. Dr. Tornatore proposed molecular mimicry as the 

medical theory for causation. Id. at *9. In support of that 

various clinical features and AQP4-IgG antibody test results. See Wingerchuk et al., International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum 

Disorders, 85 Neurology 177, 178 (2015). In 2013, a panel 

of experts decided that the term “NMO would be subsumed 

into the single descriptive term NMOSD because the clinical behavior, immunopathogenesis, and treatment of patients who have NMOSD are not demonstrably different 

than for those with NMO and patients with incomplete 

forms of NMO frequently later fulfill NMO criteria.” Id.

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 8 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 9

theory, Dr. Tornatore cited medical literature discussing 

molecular mimicry and its role in the development of TM 

following vaccinations. See, e.g., N. Nakamura et al., Neurologic Complications Associated with Influenza Vaccination: Two Adult Cases, 42 Internal Med. 191, 193–94 

(2003). Dr. Tornatore also relied on statements from Mr. 

Morgan’s treating physicians indicating a possible connection between Mr. Morgan’s vaccination and the onset of his 

disease. Dr. Tornatore did not, however, point to any evidence suggesting a connection between the influenza vaccine and NMOSD.

The government’s expert, Dr. Subramaniam Sriram, 

disagreed with Dr. Tornatore and testified that in his opinion Mr. Morgan’s condition was NMOSD featuring relapsing LETM, not merely LETM.5 Special Master’s Decision

at *10. Regarding the NMOSD diagnostic criteria, Dr. Sriram agreed with Dr. Tornatore that Mr. Morgan was seronegative and thus needed to exhibit a second clinical 

characteristic in addition to acute myelitis in order to justify a diagnosis of NMOSD under the NMOSD diagnostic 

criteria. However, Dr. Sriram asserted that the additional 

characteristic was present. He pointed to Dr. Pace’s analysis of the two brain MRIs, which supported the existence 

of an area postrema brain lesion. He also pointed to the

MRI ordered by Dr. Wahl, which showed expansion of myelitis along the spinal cord, thus evincing dissemination in 

space. Id. at *11. Dr. Sriram also noted that the NMOSD 

diagnostic criteria were “guidelines” for treating 

5 The government asserted, and the special master 

agreed, that LETM can be an acute condition or a feature 

of a chronic disorder, such as NMOSD or multiple sclerosis, 

both of which result from hyperactivity of the immune system directed to the central nervous system. See Special 

Master’s Decision at *16. Dr. Tornatore’s testimony is consistent with that conclusion. See J.A. 107–08.

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 9 Filed: 03/24/2021
10 MORGAN v. HHS

physicians and did not have to be applied rigidly in order 

to reach a correct diagnosis.

Dr. Sriram testified that TM is generally considered a 

monophasic disease, not a polyphasic disease, especially 

when connected to an infection or vaccination event, as alleged in this case. On the other hand, NMOSD is typically 

considered a chronic condition, with 60 to 70 percent of patients suffering relapses, according to Dr. Sriram. In sum, 

Dr. Sriram concluded from the totality of Mr. Morgan’s

medical history, including the remitting and relapsing nature of his disease, that the proper diagnosis was NMOSD 

with clinically relapsing LETM.

The special master issued a decision denying Mr. Morgan’s claim for compensation. Special Master’s Decision at 

*20. As a preliminary matter, the special master agreed 

with Mr. Morgan that his neurologic condition did not predate his flu vaccination. Id. at *17. The special master 

found, however, that the record best supported a diagnosis 

of NMOSD, not LETM. Id. at *18. The special master then 

reviewed Mr. Morgan’s showing on causation regarding the 

flu vaccine and NMOSD. Id. at *19. The special master 

concluded that Mr. Morgan failed to carry his burden with 

respect to the first two prongs of the causation test set out 

in Althen v. Secretary of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 

1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Mr. Morgan moved for review of the special master’s 

decision, but the Court of Federal Claims affirmed. Morgan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 148 Fed. Cl. 454, 477

(2020). 

Mr. Morgan appeals to this court. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f).

II

On appeal, Mr. Morgan challenges the special master’s 

conclusion that the evidence best supports a diagnosis of

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 10 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 11

NMOSD, and he argues that the special master’s findings 

on causation were tainted by that erroneous conclusion.

A petitioner seeking compensation under the Vaccine 

Act for an injury not listed in the Vaccine Injury Table (see

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14) must prove by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the vaccine was the cause in fact of the 

injury. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 618 

F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii). To prove causation in 

fact, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of 

the evidence “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the 

vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause 

and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for 

the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” De Bazan v. 

Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008) (quoting the “Althen test” from 418 F.3d at

1278). In cases in which the nature of the claimant’s injury 

is in dispute, a fundamental first step in the causation 

analysis is to determine the nature of the injury based on 

a preponderance of the evidence. See Lombardi v. Sec’y of 

Health & Hum. Servs., 656 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 

2011).

In Vaccine Act cases, we review a decision by the Court 

of Federal Claims de novo, applying the same standard of 

review as that court applies in reviewing a decision of a 

special master. Broekelschen, 618 F.3d at 1345. Although 

we review legal determinations without deference, we review the special master’s factual findings under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Milik v. Sec’y of Health & 

Hum. Servs., 822 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The 

arbitrary and capricious standard is difficult for an appellant to satisfy with respect to any issue, but particularly 

with respect to an issue that turns on the weighing of evidence by the trier of fact.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 11 Filed: 03/24/2021
12 MORGAN v. HHS

A

Mr. Morgan argues that the special master’s diagnosis 

of NMOSD was arbitrary and capricious because it relied 

on factual findings that had no basis in the evidence of record. More specifically, Mr. Morgan argues that the special 

master erred in finding that Mr. Morgan’s condition satisfied the diagnostic criteria for NMOSD, seronegative type.

The NMOSD diagnostic criteria for seronegative adult 

patients are as follows: First, the patient must exhibit two 

or more core clinical characteristics along with the corresponding MRI components. Second, at least one of the core 

clinical characteristics must be optic neuritis, TM, or area 

postrema clinical syndrome. Third, the two required core 

clinical characteristics must occur across different neuroanatomic regions, i.e., they must exhibit “dissemination in 

space.” Wingerchuk et al., International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders, 85 Neurology 177, 179 (2015); see also Weinshenker 

et al., Neuromyelitis Spectrum Disorders, 92 Mayo Clinic 

Proc. 663, 666 (2017). It is undisputed that Mr. Morgan’s 

injury satisfied the clinical characteristic of TM and its 

MRI component. The characteristic in dispute is the area 

postrema syndrome and its corresponding MRI component 

requiring a lesion in a specific area of the brain. See Wingerchuk et al., supra, at 179.

The special master found that Mr. Morgan’s medical 

history “demonstrated brain lesions in the area postrema 

region of the brain” and that the “mere existence of an area 

postrema lesion supported a diagnosis of NMOSD by itself.” Special Master’s Decision at *18. That finding was 

clearly erroneous, Mr. Morgan contends, because the 

NMOSD diagnostic criteria require area postrema syndrome, and Dr. Sriram admitted that Mr. Morgan did not 

have any of the clinical symptoms evincing that syndrome, 

namely hiccups, nausea, or vomiting. According to Mr. 

Morgan, the special master’s finding was also clearly 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 12 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 13

erroneous because the official interpretation of the brain 

MRIs in Mr. Morgan’s medical records did not indicate a 

lesion in the area postrema. Finally, beyond the dispute 

over the area postrema characteristic, Mr. Morgan contends that the special master erred in concluding that the 

April 2013 MRI showing the expansion of myelitis along

the spinal cord satisfied the requirement of dissemination 

in space. That was error, Mr. Morgan argues, because dissemination in space requires two or more clinical characteristics that affect different neuroanatomic regions, not 

merely different segments of the spinal cord.

Even assuming Mr. Morgan is correct in arguing that 

his injury did not satisfy the technical requirements of the

NMOSD diagnostic criteria, the special master’s conclusion 

that Mr. Morgan was suffering from NMOSD is still supported by ample evidence, for several reasons. 

First, the remitting and relapsing nature of Mr. Morgan’s condition strongly supports a diagnosis of NMOSD as 

opposed to LETM. Dr. Sriram explained that TM can be a 

stand-alone condition or a feature of NMOSD. He testified 

that TM, manifesting on its own, is typically a monophasic 

event, while “60 to 70 percent” of patients with NMOSD 

will relapse. J.A. 156. He also explained that physicians 

will reconsider an initial diagnosis of TM if a relapse occurs.

While Dr. Tornatore testified that in his opinion an individual with TM can experience relapses and that Mr. 

Morgan had LETM, see J.A. 116 and 125, the special master was entitled to credit Dr. Sriram’s testimony over Dr. 

Tornatore’s conflicting testimony and to conclude that the 

overall course of Mr. Morgan’s symptoms fit best with a diagnosis of NMOSD. See Special Master’s Decision at *18–

19. The special master’s decision in that regard is not an 

outlier. Other special masters have reached the same conclusion on similar facts. See, e.g., Doles v. Sec’y of Health 

& Hum. Servs., No. 17-642V, 2021 WL 750416, at *16 (Fed. 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 13 Filed: 03/24/2021
14 MORGAN v. HHS

Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2021) (noting a “distinction between 

acute demyelinating injuries such as transverse myelitis 

and chronic, relapsing demyelinating injuries such as multiple sclerosis”); Wei-Ti Chen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.

Servs., No. 16-634V, 2019 WL 2121208, at *19 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 2019) (collecting cases); see also Crosby 

v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 08-799V, 2012 WL 

13036266, at *5 n.7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 20, 2012) 

(citing various medical journals that describe TM as 

“acute” and “generally monophasic”).

Second, there is significant evidence in Mr. Morgan’s 

medical history other than acute myelitis that is suggestive 

of NMOSD. In particular, Dr. Sriram pointed to the expansion of myelitis vertically along the spinal cord and a brain 

abnormality in an area most commonly associated with 

NMOSD. The MRI ordered by Dr. Wahl showed that myelitis had expanded along Mr. Morgan’s spinal cord over a 

period of roughly seven months. That expansion was very 

relevant to an NMOSD diagnosis, Dr. Sriram testified, regardless of whether it fit within the technical conditions of 

the NMOSD diagnostic criteria. In addition, Dr. Pace’s 

analysis of Mr. Morgan’s brain MRI noted signal hyperintensities located near the ventricles of the brain. Dr. Pace 

described those hypersensitivities as having “unclear significance,” but noted that they “can be seen in [NMO] spectrum.” J.A. 269. Regarding Dr. Pace’s notes, Dr. Sriram 

testified that there are very few diseases that produce an 

abnormality near the fourth ventricle of the brain, that 

NMOSD is one of those diseases, and that such an abnormality would be something treating physicians would “pay 

attention to” with respect to an NMOSD diagnosis. J.A. 

176–77.

Mr. Morgan argues that his medical history does not 

reflect the presence of all the symptoms normally associated with NMOSD, particularly those symptoms associated with area postrema syndrome. As Dr. Sriram testified 

and the special master found, however, the symptoms 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 14 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 15

reported by the treating physicians were strongly suggestive of NMOSD rather than LETM. Mr. Morgan thoroughly explored the ways in which his symptoms departed 

from the classic symptoms of NMOSD, both on cross-examination of Dr. Sriram and in his briefing to the special master. Notwithstanding the absence of some symptoms 

generally associated with NMOSD, the special master concluded that the evidence summarized by both experts supported Dr. Sriram’s proposed diagnosis of NMOSD better 

than Dr. Tornatore’s proposed diagnosis of LETM. We are 

not inclined to second-guess that weighing of the evidence.

Third, the diagnoses and assessments of Mr. Morgan’s 

condition by his treating physicians, on balance, favor a diagnosis of NMOSD. There were 13 such diagnoses and assessments between the day after Mr. Morgan’s vaccination

and the spring of 2017. Six of those diagnoses and assessments suggested stand-alone TM/LETM, while five suggested NMOSD. Importantly, however, four of the five

suggesting NMOSD were provided after all of Mr. Morgan’s 

relapses, which occurred in the spring of 2013 and thereafter. On the other hand, only two of the six suggesting TM 

were provided after the first relapse in the spring of 2013. 

Based on that record, the special master concluded that 

“[t]reaters initially, and rationally, interpreted [Mr. Morgan’s] symptoms and test results (like MRIs) as supportive 

of LETM. . . . But over time, [Mr. Morgan] began experiencing a progressive course of symptoms that suggested a 

relapse, and certainly resulted in more severe symptoms 

that impacted his ambulation. . . . Thereafter, other evidence (as extensively referenced above) undermined the initial conclusion about the possible nature of [Mr. Morgan’s]

injury,” and the more likely diagnosis became NMOSD. 

Special Master’s Decision at *18. The special master’s conclusion was not unreasonable.

Finally, contrary to Mr. Morgan’s suggestion, the evidence did not show that the NMOSD diagnostic criteria are 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 15 Filed: 03/24/2021
16 MORGAN v. HHS

the definitive metric for diagnosing NMOSD, to the exclusion of all other evidence in the record. The primary purpose of the NMOSD diagnostic criteria was to differentiate 

NMOSD from multiple sclerosis, because treatments for either of those two diseases are known to have detrimental 

effects on patients suffering from the other disease. See 

Weinshenker et al., supra, at 666. The purpose was not to 

distinguish NMOSD from relapsing LETM. See id.6

In contrast to the purpose for which the NMOSD diagnostic criteria were created, the special master’s focus was

not to distinguish between NMOSD and multiple sclerosis, 

but to determine whether Mr. Morgan suffered from the 

alleged injury, LETM. For that purpose, the NMOSD diagnostic criteria served as a relevant data point but were 

not dispositive. The diagnostic criteria themselves recognize that in the case of a seronegative patient experiencing 

recurring myelitis, “NMOSD cannot be excluded.” Weinshenker et al., supra, at 666–67. Thus, even if Mr. Morgan’s 

injury did not fully satisfy the NMOSD diagnostic criteria, 

the special master’s diagnosis of NMOSD is well supported 

by the evidence of record, including the remitting-relapsing

nature of Mr. Morgan’s condition, the MRIs showing features unique to NMOSD, the sum of the treating physicians’ diagnoses, and expert testimony from Dr. Sriram. 

For those reasons, we hold that, based on the record as a 

6 Dr. Sriram testified that although Mr. Morgan’s 

brain abnormality persuaded him that NMOSD was the 

correct diagnosis, the existence of that brain abnormality 

was not pertinent to the proper treatment—“[Mr. Morgan 

was] going to be treated similarly” with or without the 

brain lesion. J.A. 177.

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 16 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 17

whole, the special master’s diagnosis was not arbitrary or 

capricious. See 42 U.S.C. § 300a-13(a)(1).7

B

Mr. Morgan argues that the special master’s findings 

on causation were erroneous because they relied upon the 

special master’s improper conclusion that Mr. Morgan suffered from NMOSD. Because we reject Mr. Morgan’s argument that the special master’s finding regarding NMOSD 

was arbitrary and capricious, we review the special master’s causation findings with respect to whether Mr. Morgan’s vaccination caused his NMOSD.

In his causation analysis, the special master first noted 

that Mr. Morgan’s theory of molecular mimicry was an accepted scientific theory for explaining how a vaccine could

cause TM. Special Master’s Decision at *19. Despite the 

acceptability of molecular mimicry, the special master

found an absence of evidence in the record and a lack of 

authority in prior Vaccine Act decisions supporting molecular mimicry as a viable mechanism for causing NMOSD 

and, more generally, supporting the hypothesis that a flu 

vaccine could cause NMOSD. Id. at *19–20. For those reasons, the special master concluded that Mr. Morgan had 

not satisfied the first two prongs of the Althen test.

7 Mr. Morgan asserts that the government abandoned its theory that the NMOSD diagnostic criteria were 

satisfied, and that the special master erred by “credit[ing] 

an argument that [the government] clearly elected to 

waive.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 21. We reject that argument. The special master was entitled to weigh the totality 

of the evidence, regardless of the position taken by the government as to particular pieces of evidence. The question 

before us is whether the evidence as a whole was sufficient 

to support the special master’s conclusion, and we hold that 

it was.

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 17 Filed: 03/24/2021
18 MORGAN v. HHS

We discern no error in the special master’s causation 

analysis. To carry his burden on causation, Mr. Morgan

needed to provide a reputable medical or scientific explanation pertaining to his alleged vaccine injury, although 

that explanation needed only to be “legally probable, not 

medically or scientifically certain.” Moberly v. Sec’y of 

Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

(citation omitted). Mr. Morgan failed to show how his flu 

vaccination could have caused his NMOSD through the 

mechanism of molecular mimicry. The most Mr. Morgan

offered on that question was a reference listing various infectious agents that could play a role in triggering NMOSD. 

See S. Kim et al., Differential Diagnosis of Neuromyelitis 

Optica Spectrum Disorders, 10 Therapeutic Advances in 

Neurological Disorders 265, 279 (2017). That list of infectious agents does not, however, include the influenza virus. 

Additionally, while Dr. Tornatore testified regarding the 

possible relationship between molecular mimicry and 

NMOSD, his testimony did not implicate the flu vaccine. 

See J.A. 104–07.

Given the lack of evidence supporting a connection between the flu vaccine and NMOSD, it is clear that Mr. Morgan has not established, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that his flu vaccination was causally connected to 

his NMOSD through the medical theory of molecular mimicry. Nor has he established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a logical sequence of cause and effect 

showing that his vaccination was the reason for his remitting-relapsing NMOSD.

In sum, as in Broekelschen, 618 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 

2010), the causation inquiry in this case largely turns on 

which injury the claimant has suffered. See id. at 1346. 

Because Mr. Morgan was found to have suffered from 

NMOSD, and because Mr. Morgan has not provided sufficient evidence to support a legally probable connection between his vaccination and his NMOSD, we hold that the 

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 18 Filed: 03/24/2021
MORGAN v. HHS 19

special master’s findings on causation were not arbitrary 

or capricious. 

We therefore uphold the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-2107 Document: 33 Page: 19 Filed: 03/24/2021