VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00473
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00473
Petitioner: Arthur L. Trollinger
Filed: 2016-04-14
Decided: 2023-02-17
Vaccine: pneumococcal
Vaccination date: 2015-07-17
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On April 14, 2016, Arthur L. Trollinger filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that the Prevnar-13 pneumococcal vaccine he received on July 17, 2015, caused him to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Mr. Trollinger, then 68 years old, experienced symptoms including loss of feeling in his hands and weakness and numbness in his legs approximately ten days after vaccination. He was diagnosed with GBS and received treatment, including IVIG and rehabilitation. Petitioner was represented by Nancy Routh Meyers of Turning Point Litigation, and Respondent was represented by Mallori Browne Openchowski of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Petitioner presented expert reports from Dr. Lawrence Steinman, who proposed a theory of molecular mimicry, suggesting that components within the pneumococcal vaccine, specifically phosphoglycerol, could mimic structures in the nerve's myelin sheath, triggering an autoimmune response leading to GBS. Dr. Steinman's theory evolved over the course of the litigation, initially focusing on phospholipids and later on phosphoglycerol found in some of the vaccine's polysaccharide antigens. He also explored potential mimicry involving the vaccine's CRM protein conjugate and the role of the alum adjuvant.

Respondent presented expert reports from Dr. Timothy Vartanian and Dr. J. Lindsay Whitton. Dr. Vartanian questioned the diagnosis of GBS, highlighting discrepancies in nerve conduction studies and suggesting alternative causes like hyponatremia. Both Dr. Vartanian and Dr. Whitton contested Dr. Steinman's causation theory, arguing that the evidence did not establish a reliable link between the pneumococcal vaccine and GBS. Dr. Whitton specifically critiqued the molecular mimicry theory, noting the lack of scientific support for pneumococcus infection causing GBS, the difference between gram-positive bacteria like pneumococcus and gram-negative bacteria associated with GBS, and the speculative nature of the proposed mimicry mechanism involving phosphoglycerol and the vaccine's conjugate. He also argued that the scientific literature cited by Dr. Steinman was either specific to multiple sclerosis or did not establish a causal link for GBS.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran denied entitlement, finding that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the pneumococcal vaccine can cause GBS or did so in his case. The Special Master concluded that Petitioner's causation theory, particularly the molecular mimicry argument, lacked sufficient specificity and reliable scientific support when applied to the pneumococcal vaccine, distinguishing it from the established link between the flu vaccine and GBS. The Special Master found Dr. Whitton's critiques persuasive and noted that Dr. Steinman's theory had a "one-size-fits-all quality" that strained to apply flu vaccine science to the pneumococcal vaccine context.

Petitioner sought review of the Chief Special Master's decision. Judge Eleni M. Roumel of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims affirmed the Special Master's decision, denying entitlement. The Court found that the Chief Special Master correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to the Althen prongs and did not err in evaluating Petitioner's expert or considering the molecular mimicry theory. The Court concluded that the Chief Special Master's factual findings and legal analyses were in accordance with binding precedent and did not reflect arbitrary or capricious reasoning. The Court affirmed the denial of entitlement, finding that Petitioner had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the pneumococcal vaccine can cause GBS.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Arthur L. Trollinger, aged 68, received a Prevnar-13 pneumococcal vaccine on July 17, 2015, and subsequently developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Petitioner's expert, Dr. Lawrence Steinman, proposed a theory of molecular mimicry, initially suggesting phospholipids in the vaccine mimicked nerve myelin components, and later focusing on phosphoglycerol within the vaccine's polysaccharide antigens as a mimic of host tissue phospholipids. Dr. Steinman also explored potential mimicry involving the vaccine's CRM protein conjugate and the role of the alum adjuvant. Respondent's experts, Dr. Timothy Vartanian and Dr. J. Lindsay Whitton, contested the theory, highlighting a lack of scientific evidence linking the pneumococcal vaccine to GBS, questioning the proposed mechanism, and suggesting alternative causes for Petitioner's condition. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran denied entitlement, finding Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the pneumococcal vaccine can cause GBS, a decision affirmed by Judge Eleni M. Roumel on review. The public decision does not describe the specific onset symptoms, diagnostic tests, or treatment details beyond general GBS management. Petitioner's counsel was Nancy Routh Meyers, and Respondent's counsel was Mallori Browne Openchowski. The decision date was February 17, 2023, with the court affirming on August 15, 2023. No award was made.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00473-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-15
Pages: 42
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/17/2023) regarding 81 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (saj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 42
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-473V
(to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Chief Special Master Corcoran
ARTHUR L. TROLLINGER, *
*
*
Petitioner, * Dated: February 17, 2023
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ENTITLEMENT DECISION1
On April 14, 2016, Arthur Trollinger filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine and Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 (ECF No. 1) (“Petition”).
Petitioner alleges that the Prevnar-13 (“pneumococcal”) vaccine he received on July 17, 2015,
caused him to incur Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Id.
The parties have agreed that the matter could reasonably be resolved via ruling on the
record and filed briefs in support of their respective positions. See Petitioner’s Motion, dated
1 This Decision shall 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. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”]. Individual section references hereafter will be to Section 300aa of the Act (but will omit the statutory prefix).

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 42
January 14, 2022 (ECF No. 72) (“Mot.”); Respondent’s Opposition, dated April 29, 2022 (ECF
No. 76) (“Opp.”); Petitioner’s Reply, dated June 2, 2022 (ECF No. 80) (“Reply”). Having
reviewed the above plus the filed medical records, expert reports, and associated literature, I hereby
deny an entitlement award. As discussed in greater detail below, Petitioner has not preponderantly
established that the pneumococcal vaccine can cause GBS, or did so to him.
I. Factual Background
Petitioner, a 68-year-old man with a prior medical history of smoking and alcohol abuse
(though he had remained sober for 24 years) and chronic lower back pain, received the
pneumococcal vaccine during an annual wellness exam on July 17, 2015. Ex. 1 at 6–7; Ex. 10 at
2. A little more than a week later, he presented to the Emergency Room (“ER”) at Alamance
Regional Medical Center in Burlington, North Carolina, on July 25, 2015, with complaints of
abdominal pain. Ex. 3 at 2. After radiological and laboratory testing revealed no apparent cause of
Petitioner’s pain, he was diagnosed with gastric reflux. Ex. 4 at 441–44, 450–51, 453–84.
Petitioner alleges that on July 27, 2015 (ten days post-vaccination), he woke up and
discovered he had lost feeling in his hands, and later that morning was experiencing weakness plus
pins and needles sensations in his legs. Pet. at 2. Mr. Trollinger’s wife drove him to a local walk-
in medical provider, but the physician sent him back to the ER after developing numbness in his
hands and feet, and ptosis3 of the right eye. Ex. 4 at 40–42, 72–73. He was admitted to Alamance
Regional Medical Center and after MRIs of his brain and L-spine, a CT of his head, and lab work,
he was diagnosed with GBS. Id. at 42, 67–74, 157, 319. He received five doses of IVIG,4 and his
symptoms began to improve. Id. at 75–76, 78, 80, 165. At that time, treating neurologist Matthew
Smith, M.D., stated that Petitioner’s GBS was “likely due to pneumonia shot” he had received one
week earlier. Id. at 80. Petitioner was discharged from Alamance Regional Medical Center on
August 3, 2015. Id. at 36–37.
Petitioner required rehabilitation and was transferred to Moses Cone Health—a long-term
care facility—from August 3-10, 2015. Pet. at 2; Ex. 5 at 10–24. He was experiencing back pain,
difficulty swallowing, fatigue, blurred vision, and weakness in his lower extremities, and needed
minimum to moderate assistance with transfers and walking. Ex. 5 at 10–15. He received speech,
physical, and occupational therapy, and was discharged one week later. Ex. 5 at 14. Petitioner then
received at-home assistance through Advanced Home Care Agency from August 11, 2015 through
August 27, 2015. Ex. 6 at 27–29, 35–49, 50–54. Petitioner was also referred for ongoing physical
3 Ptosis is “drooping of the upper eyelid.” Ptosis, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=42014 (last visited Feb. 17, 2023).
4 Intravenous immunoglobulin (“IVIG”) is a blood product used to treat patients with antibody deficiencies, including
neurological disorders. Clinical Uses of Intravenous Immunoglobulin, NCBI (2005),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1809480/ (last visited on February 17, 2023).
2

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 3 of 42
therapy, which he attended through Alamance Regional Medical Center’s Outpatient
Rehabilitation Center, from October 6, 2015 through the end of the year. Ex. 7 at 23–50, 60–97,
105–27.
On August 19, 2015, Mr. Trollinger saw his primary care physician (“PCP”) to follow up
on his GBS diagnosis. Ex. 1 at 4–5. He was still attending physical therapy, and complained of
difficulty with swallowing, back pain, and muscle spasms. Id. He was also experiencing
tachycardia, chest pain, and shortness of breath, and was referred to a cardiologist. Id.
Petitioner was next seen by cardiologist Dwayne Callwood, M.D., on August 31, 2015. Ex.
9 at 6–13. Dr. Callwood recorded for history of present illness that Petitioner “developed Guillain-
Barré syndrome after a pneumonia shot.” Id. at 6. He also recorded that Petitioner had angina5
symptoms the last three or four months, shortness of breath, and tachycardia, so he was referred
for a cardiac evaluation. Id. Dr. Callwood stated that “[t]he multiple new symptoms [are] related
to his Guillain-Barré.” Id. at 6.
Petitioner also followed up with neurology on September 21, 2015. Ex. 10 at 9–15. His
records from that visit noted that he had received the pneumococcal vaccine in July 2015, but this
record did not relate that event to his current GBS symptoms, which Petitioner reported were
slowly improving. Id. at 9. The note did, however, list the pneumococcal vaccine as an allergic
agent, and also noted numbness, shortness of breath, and chest pain. Id. at 10. Neurologist Hemang
Shah, M.D. diagnosed Petitioner with GBS, prescribed Gabapentin, and advised Petitioner that he
should hold off on driving. Id. at 15.
Petitioner underwent a nerve conduction study and EMG6 testing on October 2, 2015 (now
more than ten weeks from his onset of neurologic symptoms). Ex. 10 at 2–3. At the time of the
examination, he displayed bilateral weakness and numbness in his hands, feet, and legs. Id. at 2.
Dr. Shah listed that Petitioner’s “[p]ast medical history [wa]s significant for pneumonia vaccine
prior to gradual onset of symptoms.” Id. The impression was a “generalized polyneuropathy,” with
sensory deficits predominant, but “no evidence of conduction block.” Id. at 3 (suggesting that
Petitioner’s normal median motor response could represent “more proximal lesion”).
5 Angina is “any spasmodic, choking, or suffocative pain.” Angina, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=2770&searchterm=angina (last visited Feb. 17, 2023).
6 Electromyography is the process by which “an electrodiagnostic technique for recording the extracellular activity
(action potentials and evoked potentials) of skeletal muscles at rest, during voluntary contractions, and during
electrical stimulation; performed using any of a variety of surface electrodes, needle electrodes, and devices for
amplifying, transmitting, and recording the signals.” Electromyography, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=15854&searchterm=electromyography (last visited Feb. 17,
2023).
3

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 4 of 42
By January 20, 2016, Petitioner had improved enough to cut and haul wood, though he was
still using a cane to walk. Ex. 13 at 5. In February, he asked to be cleared for his commercial
driver’s license, and his PCP referred him to neurology. Id. at 6. He also had a follow-up with
cardiology in April 2016, where Dwayne Callwood, M.D., stated that his GBS was “possibly
related to the pneumonia vaccine[.]” Ex. 11 at 15. On May 31, 2016, he again visited his PCP,
where it was noted that his GBS symptoms were slowly improving and “is aware to never get
another vaccine.” Ex. 13 at 4–5.
Currently, Petitioner continues to suffer from numbness and tingling in his hands, up to his
wrists, and in his feet, up to his calves. Pet. at 3. He also has tightening in his torso. Id. Petitioner
continues to take Gabapentin and receives follow-up care from Dr. Shah. Id.
II. Expert Reports
A. Petitioner’s Expert – Lawrence Steinman, M.D.
Dr. Steinman, an adult and pediatric neurologist, prepared four written reports for the
Petitioner. Report, dated March 7, 2017, filed as Ex. 14 (ECF No. 26-1) (“Steinman First Rep.”);
Report, dated August 7, 2017, filed as Ex. 31 (ECF No. 35-1) (“Steinman Second Rep.”); Report,
dated August 6, 2021, filed as Ex. 40 (ECF No. 67-1) (“Steinman Third Rep.”); Report, dated May
16, 2022, filed as Ex. 62 (ECF No. 79-1) (“Steinman Fourth Rep.”). Altogether, Dr. Steinman
offered 80 pages of expert opinion on this matter, not merely refining but almost substituting a
second theory later in the claim’s life. Ultimately, however (as discussed below and throughout
this Decision), I do not conclude his effort was well spent.7
As shown in his CV, Dr. Steinman received his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth
College, and his medical degree from Harvard Medical School. Curriculum Vitae, filed as Ex. 15
on March 7, 2017 (ECF No. 26-2) (“Steinman CV”) at 1. He then completed residencies in
neurology and pediatrics at Stanford University. Id. He has worked as a professor of neurology
and pediatrics at Stanford for the past 37 years. Id.; Steinman First Rep. at 1. He is board certified
in neurology from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Steinman CV at 2. Dr.
Steinman has also published hundreds of peer-reviewed publications on neurology and
autoimmune disease. Id. at 5–46. He holds several patents related to the diagnosis and treatment
of autoimmune and demyelinating diseases. Id. at 2–3. He presently serves as the George A.
Zimmerman Professor of Neurological Sciences, Neurology, Genetics and Pediatrics at Stanford
University. Id. at 1.
7 The excessive length of these reports is in some cases attributable to Dr. Steinman’s propensity for cutting and
pasting sections taken wholesale from prior reports—a practice for which he has been criticized in the past. See, e.g.,
Pierson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1136V, 2022 WL 322836, at *12–13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 19,
2022) (copying sections from prior reports); Gross v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1075V, 2022 WL
9669651, at *15–18 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 22, 2022) (same).
4

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 5 of 42
First Report
Dr. Steinman began his report with a summary of the medical records, accepting
Petitioner’s GBS diagnosis. Steinman First Rep. at 3–5. He then outlined how the pneumococcal
vaccine could trigger GBS. Id. at 5–8. Dr. Steinman’s initial theory was based on the contention
that phospholipid8 molecular structures found in the vaccine’s antigens could, via the mechanism
of molecular mimicry, prompt a cross-reactive autoimmune response resulting in GBS.
First, Dr. Steinman discussed the content of the vaccine itself. As the pneumococcal
vaccine package insert indicates, the vaccine comprises a sterile suspension of saccharides of the
capsular antigens of Streptococcus pneumoniae from 13 serotypes (1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14,
18C, 19A, 19F and 23F), individually linked to non-toxic diphtheria CRM protein.9 Id. at 6
197
(citing Pneumococcal Package Insert, filed as Ex. 26 on Mar. 7, 2017 (ECF No. 27-5)
(“Pneumococcal Package Insert”), at 24);10 see generally D. Wang et al., Uncovering Cryptic
Glycan Markers in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis
(EAE), Drug Dev. Res. 172, 185–86 (2014), filed as Ex. 23 (ECF No. 27-2). Dr. Steinman also
contended that certain phospholipids (phosphatidyl serine and phosphatidyl choline) are also
present in the vaccine, expressed in association with its polysaccharide antigens. Steinman First
Rep. at 7–8.
For example, the phospholipid phosphorylcholine is expressed in the 19A component,
which is key in the pathophysiology of the pneumonia infection. Steinman First Rep. at 8; Yi-Ping
Chuang et al., Impact of the glpQ2 Gene on Virulence in a Streptococcus pneumoniae Serotype
19A Sequence Type 320 Strain, 83 Infection & Immunity 682, 682 (2015), filed as Ex. 28 (ECF
No. 27-7) (“Chuang”). Thus, in Dr. Steinman’s estimation, it is logical that a vaccine intended to
immunize against this pneumococcus strain might also elicit “an immune response to lipids
involved in neuroinflammation.” Steinman First Rep. at 8. In fact, the enzyme for metabolizing
lipids and producing phosphorylcholine was present in strains 3, 6B, 19A, and 19F—with three of
those strains (strains 3, 19A, and 19f) all included in the Prevnar formulation. Chuang at 682; B.
Gilburd et al., Autoantibodies to Phospholipids and Brain Extract in Patients with Guillain-Barre
8 Phospholipids have been defined as “any lipid that contains phosphorus, including those with a glycerol backbone
(phosphoglycerides and plasmalogens) or a backbone of sphingosine or related substance (sphingomyelins).
Phospholipids are the major form of lipid in all cell membranes.” Phospholipid, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=38759&searchterm=phospholipid (last visited Feb. 17, 2023).
9 “CRM is a nontoxic variant of diphtheria toxin isolated from cultures of Corynebacterium diphtheriae strain Cy
197
(β197) grown in a casamino acids and yeast extract-based medium. CRM is purified through ultrafiltration,
197
ammonium sulfate precipitation, and ion-exchange chromatography.” Pneumococcal Package Insert at 24. It is
included to induce “immunity through a T cell-dependent response.” Deshler v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
16-1070V, 2020 WL 4593162, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 1, 2020).
10 Also cited as Respondent’s Ex. M, Tab 5.
5

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 6 of 42
Syndrome: Cross-Reactive or Pathogenic? 16 Autoimmunity 1, 23–27 (1993), filed as Ex. 27
(ECF No. 27-6) (“Gilburd”) at 23, 25; see also J. Kornspan & S. Rottem, The Phospholipid Profile
of Mycoplasmas, J. Lipids 1, 2 (2012), filed as Ex. 29 (ECF No. 27-8).
Second, Dr. Steinman offered scientific literature suggesting that antibodies to these same
phospholipids were present in the blood sera of GBS patients. Steinman First Rep. at 6–7; Gilburd
at 23–27 (two of the six GBS patients considered showed reactivity to phosphatidyl serine or
phosphatidyl choline). Dr. Steinman's own research, he added, had shown that phospholipids are
components of the nerve’s myelin sheath in humans, and that they are targeted by antibodies in
the context of existing neuroinflammation. Steinman First Rep. at 7; J. Kanter et al., Lipid
Microarrays Identify Key Mediators of Autoimmune Brain Inflammation, 12 Nat. Med. 138 (2005),
filed as Ex. 21 (ECF No. 26-8) (“Kanter”). Employing the same experimental animal model relied
upon in another article (discussed herein), Kanter determined that (given the extent to which nerve
myelin is comprised of lipids) lipid-specific autoantigens likely played some role in the
pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis (“MS”), a demyelinating autoimmune disease of the central
nervous system—although Kanter is not specific to peripheral neuropathies like GBS. Kanter at
138.
Another article offered by Dr. Steinman observed that MS autoantibodies “target a
phosphate group in phosphatidyl serine and oxidized phosphatidyl choline derivatives.” Steinman
First Rep. at 7; P. Ho et al., Identification of Naturally Occurring Fatty Acids of the Myelin Sheath
That Resolve Neuroinflammation, 4 Sci. Translational Med. 1, 1 (2012), filed as Ex. 22 (ECF No.
27-1) (“Ho”). But Ho only suggests that the studied antibodies might contribute to MS
pathogenesis—not that they were the cross-reacting or an instigating spark for an autoimmune
disease. Ho at 1. Dr. Steinman did not offer other evidence supporting the greater association
between the pneumococcal vaccine and GBS.
Finally, Dr. Steinman endorsed the onset of Mr. Trollinger’s GBS as having occurred in a
medically-acceptable timeframe when measured from date of vaccination. Steinman First Rep. at
9–10. For support, he invoked an item of literature specific to the 1976 swine flu vaccine. Steinman
First Rep. at 11; L. Schonberger et al., Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following Vaccination in the
National Influenza Immunization Program, United States, 1976–1977, 110 Am. J. Epidemiol. 105
(1979), filed as Ex. 30 (ECF No. 27-9) (“Schonberger”). Because Petitioner’s onset occurred
approximately ten days after vaccination, it fell within Schonberger’s observed risk interval.
Schonberger at 109. In so maintaining, Dr. Steinman proposed (erroneously) that what is known
about timing in Schonberger is “often used as a surrogate” in other vaccine causation cases, adding
that more detailed studies specific to GBS and the pneumococcal vaccine do not exist. Steinman
First Rep. at 9.11
11 Dr. Steinman also cited to a “Reference 17” for support, but his first expert report only includes 16 citations.
6

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 7 of 42
Second Report
Dr. Steinman’s Second Report (only two pages in length)12 provided four specific
responses to some of the criticisms of Respondent’s first expert, Dr. Timothy Vartanian. First, Dr.
Steinman disputed Dr. Vartanian’s arguments about the lack of EMG/NCS support for the
existence of a demyelinating polyneuropathy. Steinman Second Rep. at 1. Dr. Steinman noted that
the EMG had been performed three months after diagnosis, and in the wake of five days of IVIG
treatment, all of which could likely diminish evidence of a motor conduction problem. Id. In
addition, Dr. Shah (who performed the EMG) referred in the record memorializing the results of
this testing to the existence of motor abnormalities and a proximal motor lesion. Id.; Ex. 10 at 2.
(Dr. Steinman’s fourth rebuttal point was somewhat related, as he also maintained that the EMG
results allegedly contrary to a finding of an existing demyelinating neuropathy actually showed
the presence of abnormal F-wave latency supportive of the presence of demyelination. Steinman
Second Rep. at 2.)
Second, Dr. Steinman commented on the scientific criteria that Dr. Vartanian deemed
necessary for the conclusion that molecular mimicry was the likely pathologic mechanism for a
disease. Steinman Second Rep. at 1; N. Yuki, Ganglioside Mimicry and Peripheral Nerve Disease,
Muscle & Nerve 691, 695 (2007), filed as Ex. Ex. F (ECF No. 33-6) (“Yuki”). One such factor
was evidence of an epidemiologic association—but Dr. Steinman deemed it an impossibility to
provide such evidence. Steinman Second Rep. at 1. He could not in this case retroactively ascertain
whether there were T cells or antibodies to the mimics asserted in his theory, given that Petitioner
was never so tested. Id. Nor was it reasonable to demand that the theory be supported by an animal
model, since that would be “beyond the capacity of any expert” offering an opinion in a Program
case. Id.
Third, Dr. Steinman took issue with Dr. Vartanian’s point that the mere presence of
autoantibodies does not imply pathologic autoimmunity. Steinman Second Rep. at 2. Although it
is well known that all people possess T cells reactive to self-antigens (including myelin basic
protein), their interaction with pro-inflammatory cytokines (a different kind of immune cell
relevant mostly to the immediate/innate immune response) is more frequent and aggressive in
individuals suffering from a neuroinflammatory disease. Id.; K. Ota et al., T Cell Recognition of
an Immunodominant Myelin Basic Protein Epitope in Multiple Sclerosis, 346 Nature 183, 183
(1990), filed as Ex. 32 (ECF No. 35-2); J. Zhang et al., Increased Frequency of Interleukin 2-
Responsive T Cells Specific for Myelin Basic Protein and Proteolipid Protein in Peripheral Blood
and Cerebrospinal Fluid of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis, 179 J. Experimental Med. 793, 980–
83 (1994), filed as Ex. 33 (ECF No. 35-3). Thus, identifying mimics to myelin proteins is only the
12 The end of Dr. Steinman’s second expert report attached (for no apparent reason) a copy of his previously-filed first
expert report. Steinman Second Rep. at 3–14.
7

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 8 of 42
first step in understanding how autoimmunity occurs—but (again) requiring more is unreasonable
in the context of a Vaccine Program case. Steinman Second Rep. at 2.
Third Report
The context in which Dr. Steinman’s third expert report was filed bears on its contents.
Nearly four years separate Dr. Steinman’s second and third expert reports, and in that time period
the case was progressing sluggishly, with little occurring save for adjudication of an interim fee
request and a fruitless attempt at informal resolution. The case was also transferred twice from the
original special master to whom it had been assigned, ending up with me in March 2021 (ECF
Nos. 61-62). Not long after, I had asked the parties to propose a schedule for ruling on the record—
but in the course of those efforts, Petitioner requested the opportunity to update Dr. Steinman’s
opinion, since “the current analysis of the molecular mimicry in Prevnar 13 is far more extensive
than in [Dr. Steinman’s] original expert report filed in this case in 2017.” Status Report, dated July
14, 2021 (ECF No. 66). I acceded to the request, and this report from Dr. Steinman was filed.
Dr. Steinman began by describing the recent “detective work” he had now performed to
support his causation theory (and in particular to verify “whether the phosphoglycerol group,
common to the phospholipids targeted in GBS, . . . were actually in the vaccine.”) (emphasis
added)13 Steinman Third Rep. at 1, 2. Tellingly, however, that work consisted less of delving into
new medical or scientific literature bearing on the purported pneumococcal vaccine-GBS
association that his first two reports contended existed, and more reflected his revised
consideration of existing evidence regarding the vaccine’s contents. Thus, he referenced an inquiry
he had made to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”),14 followed by a reference
to the vaccine’s actual package insert, and then on to the vaccine’s patent. Id. at 2–6. Nowhere
herein did Dr. Steinman explain why he had failed to perform this kind of “detective work” when
preparing his initial expert report four years before—especially since the materials he ultimately
relies upon appear to have existed in 2017, and thus could have been evaluated at the time of his
first report.
As a result of these inquiries, Dr. Steinman was able to recast his opinion slightly, now
maintaining that rather than phospholipids, the vaccine contained “phosphoglycerol,” a glycerol
13 Significantly, this assertion is somewhat inconsistent with the opinion expressed in Dr. Steinman’s first report: that
“phospholipids ARE present in Prevnar 13.” Steinman First Report at 8. As Dr. Whitton noted (discussed below),
phospholipids are not the same as phosphoglycerols. Whitton Rep. at 19.
14 Notably Dr. Steinman appears in this case to have referenced email communications generated in connection with
a different Program case involving the pneumococcal vaccine. Steinman Third Rep. at 2–4; Pierson v. Sec'y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 17-1136V, 2022 WL 322836, at *13 n.16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 19, 2022) (describing how
Dr. Steinman sought clarification on the chemistry of the pneumococcal vaccine).
8

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 9 of 42
compound of phosphoric acid (that is itself a component of phospholipids). Steinman Third Rep.
at 6.
Dr. Steinman spent the rest of the third report discussing different possible molecular
mimics to support his theory. Steinman Third Rep. at 6–21. He primarily focused on
phosphoglycerol, which he maintained was contained in some of the vaccine’s polysaccharides
taken from 13 individual pneumococcal strains, and allowed their conjugation to a protein carrier
(CRM ) that aids the vaccine’s immunogenicity. Id. at 6–7; Pneumococcal Package Insert at 24;
197
Pneumococcal United States Patent, filed as Ex. 42 on Aug. 9, 2021 (ECF No. 68-2) (the “Vaccine
Patent I”), at 34. Vaccine Patent I in particular confirmed that a glycerophosphate linkage is a
central component of the 18C strain polysaccharide structure. Steinman Third Rep. at 7–8; J.
Chang et al., Relevance Of O-Acetyl and Phosphoglycerol Groups for the Antigenicity of
Streptococcus Pneumoniae Serotype 18C Capsular Polysaccharide, 30 Vaccine 7090, 7091
(2012), filed as Ex. 43 (ECF No. 68-3) (“Chang”) (demonstrating that a phospholipid linkage is
necessary for immunogenicity of these capsular polysaccharides); C. Lugowski & H. Jennings,
Structural Determination of the Capsular Polysaccharide of Streptococcus Pneumoniae Type 18C,
131 Carbohydrate Res. (1984), filed as Ex. 44 (ECF No. 68-4) (same).
Other literature (some of which had already been filed) was referenced by Dr. Steinman to
support the phosphoglycerol presence in the pneumococcal vaccine. Gilburd, for example, had
found that six of the 16 patients with GBS included in the study possessed autoantibodies to various
phospholipids. Gilburd at 24. Dr. Steinman admitted that Gilburd’s authors had acknowledged that
“. . . no significant association was found between the presence of specific antiphospholipid
antibodies (CL, PS, PE, PC) or anti-DNA antibodies and GBS when compared to controls. . . .”
Gilburd at 26. He maintained, however, that an article published 12 years later occasioned a
reconsideration of that statement. Steinman Third Rep. at 9–10; G. Nakos et al., Anti-Phospholipid
Antibodies in Serum from Patients with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Intensive Care Med. 1401, 1404
(2005), filed as Ex. 45 (ECF No. 68-5) (“Nakos”). In Nakos, Dr. Steinman maintained, “the
phospholipids containing phosphoglycerol, all had higher levels of antibodies than the level of
antibodies to ganglioside [a commonly understood target involved in GBS’s pathogenesis].”
Steinman Third Rep. at 10. Thus, he read Nakos to better support his contention that these anti-
phosphoglycerol antibodies were likely pathogenic in GBS.
A close evaluation of Nakos finds less support for the causation theory offered than Dr.
Steinman proposed. In Nakos, a small sample of nine patients with the AIDP (meaning “acute
inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy”) GBS variant had their blood tested for the presence
of anti-phospholipid antibodies over a period of several days, with results revealing “a wide range”
of these antibodies in comparison to controls. Nakos at 1405. Consistent with Dr. Steinman’s
contention, Nakos did observe phosphatidylcholine (which has a phosphoglycerol component) as
one of the main antigens in the tested sample. Id. at 1405–07. But Nakos’s authors did not purport
9

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 10 of 42
to determine the precise role of the autoantibodies in GBS’s pathogenesis, allowing that they could
simply “represent a part of a more extensive immunoreaction that takes place in the GBS,” rather
than a primary/initial causal factor. Id. at 1406. Thus, Nakos does not appreciably extend Gilburd’s
findings.
In maintaining the potentiality for autoimmune cross-reactivity between phosphoglycerols
in the vaccine antigens and phosphoglycerol groups contained in myelin phospholipids, Dr.
Steinman seemed to concede that the latter was a literally small (in size) target for an antibody,
but nevertheless maintained that the targeting could occur. Steinman Third Rep. at 10–11. He
repeated his prior contentions regarding Ho, noting that the study showed how antibodies target
the polar head group15 on phosphoglycerol (albeit only in the context of MS). Ho at 4. He also
pointed to X-ray diffraction studies of monoclonal (meaning lab-created) antibodies, the results of
which demonstrate that antibodies can recognize the polar head group on phosphocholine.
Steinman Third Rep. at 11–13; E. Barbar et al., Binding of Phenylphosphocholine-Carrier
Conjugates to the Combining Site of Antibodies Maintains a Conformation of the Hapten, 35
Biochemistry 2958, 2958 (1996), filed as Ex. 46 (ECF No. 68-6) (showing that antibodies have
specificity for the polar head group). Thus, an antibody created in reaction to the polysaccharide
from one pneumococcal strain (23F) had the capacity to bind to the phosphate group in the essential
phosphoglycerol in the myelin.
An alternative source for mimicry leading to autoimmune cross reactivity, according to Dr.
Steinman, was the CRM protein conjugate. Steinman Third Rep. at 14. To identify a possible
197
molecular congruence, Dr. Steinman conducted a “BLAST” search16 focusing on contactin-I, a
molecule that some studies had identified as a target in the myelin damage central to GBS. Id; Y.
Miura et al., Contactin I IgG4 Associates to Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
with Sensory Ataxia, 138 Brain 1484, 1486 (2015), filed as Ex. 49 (ECF No. 68-9). He then
performed the same tabletop computer analysis consistent with what he has done in countless
Program cases17 where he seeks to establish an autoimmune process driven by molecular mimicry.
15 Not defined by Dr. Steinman, but he has previously described polar head groups as “the lipid components targeted
by the auto-antibodies.” Koller v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-439V, 2021 WL 5027947, at *10 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Oct. 8, 2021).
16 Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (“BLAST”) is a medical/scientific internet resource that assists researchers in
finding regions of similarity between biological sequences of amino acids. The program compares nucleotide or
protein sequences to sequence databases and calculates the statistical significance. BLAST, U.S. National Library of
Medicine, https://blast.ncbi nlm nih.gov/Blast.cgi (last visited Feb. 17, 2023). A BLAST search involves review of an
online database to “compare[] nucleotide and protein sequences, to search for a homology between the . . . vaccine
and [the body's myelin basic protein].” Montgomery v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1037V, 2019 WL
2511352, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2019).
17 Schilling v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-527V, 2022 WL 1101597, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 17,
2022) (“[Dr. Steinman] also (as he has done many times before) performed online BLAST searches to identify amino
acid sequence homology. . . .”).
10

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 11 of 42
Specifically, he (a) attempted to propose the degree of amino acid homology that would be
necessary, arguing that five out of a twelve amino acid string is sufficient (Id. at 14) (b) performed
searches with the BLAST online government database for the components of the pneumococcal
vaccine, to identify the amino acids comprising them, and determine whether other researchers
identified the same epitope(s)18 (Id. at 17–19), and (c) compared them to the molecular
composition in the relevant GBS target. Id. at 19–20. He concluded from the foregoing that “a
compelling case” existed in support of his contention that “molecular mimics in the
[pneumococcal vaccine] can cause GBS.” Id. at 19.
An additional factor, Dr. Steinman maintained, was the previously-described cross-reactive
process encouraged by the pneumococcal vaccine’s alum adjuvant. Steinman Third Rep. at 20–21.
By stimulating certain pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1 and IL-18) released in association with
the innate/initial immune response, alum had the capacity to “contribute[] to the pathogenesis of
GBS.” Id. at 20; S. Eisenbarth et al., Crucial Role for the Nalp3 Inflammasome in the
Immunostimulatory Properties of Aluminum Adjuvants, 453 Nature 1122, 1122 (2008), filed as
Ex. 55 (ECF No. 68-15) (“Eisenbarth”). Literature involving animal models established that IL-1
and IL-18 are upregulated during active GBS, with levels declining as the disease (which is
understood to be acute and monophasic) resolves. Steinman Third Rep. at 20–21; K. Nyati et al.,
Correlation of Matrix Metalloproteinases-2 and -9 with Proinflammatory Cytokines in Guillain-
Barré Syndrome, 88 J. Neuroscience Res. 3540, 3542 (2010), filed as Ex. 59 (ECF No. 68-19); S.
Jander & G. Stoll, Interleukin-18 Is Induced in Acute Inflammatory Demyelinating
Polyneuropathy, 114 J. Neuroimmunology 253, 253 (2001), filed as Ex. 60 (ECF No. 68-20). In
effect, the adjuvant sets an inflammatory “stage” for pathogenesis, and therefore these pieces of
literature provided “a strong scientific foundation for how the alum in the pneumococcal vaccine
would lead to an inflammatory polyneuropathy.” Steinman Third Rep. at 21. Dr. Steinman did not,
however, offer any items of literature showing that the alum alone, in the tiny amounts included
in a vaccine, could raise cytokine levels to a pathogenic level, simply on the basis of the fact that
alum activates an intracellular innate immune response. Eisenbarth at 1122.
As should be evident from the citations above, none of the literature offered in support of
Dr. Steinman’s revised causation theory had been published in the 2017-21 timeframe, with many
(if not most) of the newly-filed items published even before this case’s initiation. Dr. Steinman’s
thinking on the causal theory in this case may have changed in four years, but nothing in the
scientific or medical community’s understanding on the topic of the pneumococcal vaccine and
GBS was (at this time) shown to have similarly progressed.
18 Dr. Steinman first tested the sequence WEQAKALSVE and identified it as an area of alignment between contactin-
1 and CRM , determining it is “an epitope in diphtheria toxin, which provide the basis for CRM .” Steinman Third
197 197
Rep. at 18. Dr. Steinman tested a second sequence, EYMAQACAGNRVRR, which also has “known cross-reactivity
with epitopes described in humans and on the c. diphtheria microbe that is the basis for CRM .” Id. at 18–19.
197
11

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 12 of 42
Fourth Report
Dr. Steinman’s final expert report responds to the opinion of Respondent’s second expert,
Dr. J. Lindsay Whitton—and (notably for a rebuttal opinion) is the longest report of any he
submitted in the entirety of this case (calling into question why his initial efforts were thinner).19
At the outset, Dr. Steinman makes no effort to defend against Dr. Whitton’s contention that
the pneumococcal vaccine does not itself contain phospholipids. He only devotes himself to
bulwarking the contention from his third report: that some of the polysaccharides of the 13 S.
pneumoniae strains in the vaccine contain phosphoglycerol, and that other evidence establishes an
immune response to it capable of producing cross-reactive antibodies. See, e.g., Steinman Fourth
Rep. at 1–9.
Even with respect to this contention, however, Dr. Steinman’s arguments ignored or
sidestepped a number of Dr. Whitton’s points. For example, Dr. Steinman expansively discussed
literature establishing that an immune response was mounted to the 23F strain in the pneumococcal
vaccine. S. Bryson et al., Structures of Preferred Human IgV Genes-Based Protective Antibodies
Identify How Conserved Residues Contact Diverse Antigens and Assign Source of Specificity to
CDR3 Loop Variation, 196 J. Immunology 4723, 4725, 4727–28 (2016), filed as Ex. 65 (ECF No.
79-4) (“Bryson”); Steinman Fourth Rep. at 1–7. Even though Bryson involved antibodies
generated against antigens contained in the non-covered Pneumovax 23 version of the vaccine,
both include the 23F serotype. Steinman Fourth Rep. at 2, 4, 7. And he reemphasized that
phosphoglycerol is critical to the vaccine’s capacity to induce any immune response. Steinman
Fourth Rep. at 5, 7–12; Chang at 7091; Pneumococcal United States Patent, filed as Ex. 63 on May
16, 2022 (ECF No. 79-2), at 15.
In so maintaining, however, Dr. Steinman made no mention of Dr. Whitton’s contention
that the phosphoglycerol molecule’s small size meant that it had to be joined to a larger molecule
to make the reaction possible—and in fact, that Bryson confirmed this was what occurred. Bryson
at 4727–29; Whitton Rep. at 18–19. Thus, even if evidence established that some immune reaction
to this aspect of single included S. pneumoniae strain was likely, this did not establish the
pathologic capacity of a more targeted response to the phosphoglycerol alone (besides the fact that
an antibody responding to the “phosphoglycerol plus” molecule would find and attack the same
structure in the myelin phospholipids).
Independent of Dr. Whitton’s criticism, Bryson in fact says even less about causation
herein than Dr. Steinman proposes. The focus of Bryson was not on the immunogenicity of the
pneumococcal vaccine, how antibodies with affinity for phospholipid components might
19 I would also note that in this fourth report, Dr. Steinman repeated much of the same information discussed in his
previous expert reports, rather than succinctly raising new points in light of Dr. Whitton’s criticisms.
12

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 13 of 42
cause/contribute to GBS, or any other issue directly relevant to this case. Rather, its authors clearly
indicated that their study’s intent was to evaluate the role of preferred genes responsible for coding
antibodies to certain pathogens. Bryson at 4724. Thus, Bryson considered two particular
antibodies—one formed in response to the 23F antigenic serotype, and one formed in reaction to
the wild cytomegalovirus—choosing them specifically because both rely on a “pair of . . . preferred
genes” for their generation, even though the two pathogenic incitements are distinguishable. Id. at
4723–24. It authors subsequently considered the specific structures of the antibodies, permitting
them to “provide structural evidence that the same . . . genes . . . can assume different roles in
protective [antibodies]” due to distinct configurations—in turn establishing that “evolutionary
pressure by pathogens to retain certain . . . genes can collaborate with two stochastic processes.”
Id. at 4724. Bryson’s authors concluded that their findings “provide an example that illustrates
how a limited set of human germline genes can contribute to the creation of binding suites for a
variety of highly diverse [antigens].” Id. at 4729. Bryson seems to have only been cited by Dr.
Steinman because it had a chart showing that the 23F serotype includes phosphoglycerol.
As further support for his theory, Dr. Steinman introduced a number of actual “new”
articles—although all of them only discussed molecular mimics for MS and the Epstein-Barr virus
infection. Steinman Fourth Rep. at 13–15; T. Lanz et al., Clonally Expanded B Cells in Multiple
Sclerosis rather Bind EBV EBNA I and GlialCAM, 603 Nature 1, 1 (2021), filed as Ex. 66 (ECF
No. 79-5) (“Lanz”); W. Robinson & L. Steinman, Epstein-Barr Virus and Multiple Sclerosis, 375
Science 1, 1 (2020), filed as Ex. 67 (ECF No. 79-6) (“Robinson”); H. Wekerle, Multiple Sclerosis
Sparked by Virus-led Autoimmunity, 603 Nature 1, 1 (2022), filed as Ex. 68 (ECF No. 79-7)
(“Wekerle”). Dr. Steinman appears to have offered these articles to bulwark his endorsement of
molecular mimicry as a “sound and reliable theory”—although they say nothing about its
application in the specific context of this case, and otherwise do not make it more likely than not
that the pneumococcal vaccine could cause GBS via molecular mimicry.
Dr. Steinman also devoted extensive portions of his final report to justifying his use of
“BLAST” searches to identify a basis for the purported mimicry. Steinman Fourth Rep. at 15–24.
Dr. Whitton had contended that one article established a proper use of these searches (in the context
of identifying allergens), but revealed the importance of long homologic sequences—and thus Dr.
Steinman’s willingness to embrace homology as evidence of potential cross-reactivity based on
far shorter sequences (amino acids in the context of a protein such as CRM ) was ruining his
197
analysis due to the risk of “garbage in garbage out.” Whitton Rep. at 32–38, 40; A. Silvanovich et
al., The Value of Short Amino Acid Sequence Matches for Prediction of Protein Allergenicity, 90
Toxicological Sci.’s 252, 258 (2006), filed as Ex. M, Tab 29 (ECF No. 79-29) (“Silvanovich”).
In response, Dr. Steinman maintained that the criteria deemed important in Silvanovich to ensuring
the reliability of homology findings were “irrelevant to how the adaptive immune system processes
antigens,” (Steinman Fourth Rep. at 17), and otherwise that Dr. Steinman’s “filtration process” for
13

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 14 of 42
evaluating the significance of the homologies he identifies provided sufficient protection of his
conclusions. Steinman Fourth Rep. at 17–24.
Regarding the argument about alum’s putative role in causing GBS, Dr. Steinman ignored
Dr. Whitton’s argument that this amounted to an embrace of the discredited ASIA causation
theory.20 Steinman Fourth Rep. at 26. Instead, Dr. Steinman merely reiterated his prior argument
that the kind of pro-inflammatory cytokines upregulated due to the inclusion of an alum adjuvant
in a vaccine had been shown to be elevated in GBS patients. Id. Otherwise, and throughout his
final report, Dr. Steinman defended the overall quality of his evidence (and indirectly the fact that
he offered very little specific to the pneumococcal vaccine’s intersection with GBS). He
maintained instead that he could do no more and should not be asked to in a Vaccine Program
case. Steinman Fourth Rep. at 6 (stating that demonstration of antibody response to 23F antigen
“takes us about as “close” as we can get to certainty”), 15 (“[t]he best that can be done in providing
a sound and reliable theory is to do the in-silica computer searches that have been performed”).
B. Respondent’s Experts
1. Timothy Vartanian, M.D., PhD. – Dr. Vartanian submitted two expert
reports on behalf of Respondent. Report, filed as Ex. A on May 26, 2017 (ECF No. 33-1)
(“Vartanian First Rep.”); Report, filed as Ex. L on October 27, 2017 (ECF No. 38-1) (“Vartanian
Second Rep.”). Dr. Vartanian contested Dr. Steinman’s initial medical theory, and also questioned
whether the record even evinced a true neuropathy (or at least one that could be linked to the
Petitioner’s receipt of the pneumococcal vaccine). Vartanian First Rep. at 10.
Dr. Vartanian received his bachelor’s degree from Oakland University, along with his
medical and doctorate degree from the University of Chicago. Curriculum Vitae, filed as Ex. B on
May 26, 2017 (ECF No. 33-2) (“Vartanian CV”) at 1; Vartanian First Rep. at 1. He completed a
residency at Massachusetts General Hospital in Neurology. Vartanian CV at 2; Vartanian First
Rep. at 1. He then completed two fellowships, the first at Beth Israel Hospital and the second at
Harvard Medical School. Vartanian CV at 2. Since 2009, Dr. Vartanian holds positions as a
Professor at Weill Cornell Medicine. Id. and an attending neurologist at New York Presbyterian
Hospital. Vartanian CV at 2; Vartanian First Rep. at 1. He is licensed to practice medicine in New
York, and is board certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and Adult
20 “ASIA” stands for ““autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.” Dr. Whitton is not the only
person to question ASIA as a credible or scientifically-reliable causal theory—for numerous special masters have
reached the very same conclusion (including myself). See, e.g., McGuinness v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
17-0954V, 2021 WL 5292343, at *17 n.17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 20, 2021); Morris v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 12-415V, 2016 WL 3022141, at * 12 (Fed. Cl Spec. Mstr. Apr. 1, 2016); Rowan v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 10-272V, 2014 WL 7465661, at * 16 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 8, 2014), mot. for review den'd,
2015 WL 3562409 (Fed. Cl. May 18, 2015); D'Angiolini v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-578V, 2014 WL
1678145, at *60 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 27, 2014), mot. for review den'd, 122 Fed. Cl. 86 (2015), aff'd, 645 F.
App'x 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
14

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 15 of 42
Neurology. Vartanian CV at 3. Dr. Vartanian conducts research centered around pattern
recognition receptors, specifically in the central nervous system. Id. at 8–10; Vartanian First Rep.
at 1. He has published a substantial number of peer-reviewed articles. Vartanian CV at 13–20.
First Report
After consideration of the medical record, Dr. Vartanian explained the relevant disease and
diagnosis. Vartanian First Rep. at 2–3. GBS (or the AIDP variant thought to be most common) and
Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) are related neuropathies
characterized by focal segmental demyelination of peripheral nerves, which EMG/NCS studies
can identify with evidence of signal “conduction block.” Id. at 3–4. Demyelination occurs in GBS
most commonly due to an autoimmune response directed against gangliosides (molecular
structures on the myelin surface), or other lipids, proteins, or carbohydrates present on myelin. Id.
at 4. Demyelinating neuropathies show marked slowing of conduction velocities and marked
increases in latencies. Id. at 4–5.
Although Dr. Vartanian’s report did not directly contest Petitioner’s diagnosis, he did raise
several questions about its trustworthiness. First, he noted discrepancies between the EMG/NCS
testing Petitioner underwent in October 2015, and what would normally be expected for persons
experiencing a true demyelinating neuropathy. For example, Dr. Vartanian observed that reduced
amplitudes of action potentials are seen in demyelinating neuropathies only when there is
conduction block. Vartanian First Rep. at 5. But Petitioner’s EMG/NCS testing revealed no
conduction block, but instead a decrease in the amplitude of the action potentials only in the
sensory fibers (his motor fibers were normal). Id. at 4.
Second, Dr. Vartanian highlighted other findings that suggested alternative explanations
for Petitioner’s illness. On November 25, 2015, there was a discussion among treaters about the
existence of hyponatremia21 and hypoosmolality based on testing results.22 Vartanian First Rep. at
6.; Ex. 12 at 2. Hyponatremia is known to have a negative effect on neuropathies, and “proton
pump inhibitor” drugs intended to treat acid reflux or other gastric disorders (and which Petitioner
was then receiving) are specifically associated with hyponatremia. Vartanian First. Rep. at 6. Thus,
Dr. Vartanian deemed it unwise to have placed Petitioner on such a drug, since it likely exacerbated
his condition. Id.; G. Bahat, Risk of Proton Pump Inhibitor–Induced Mild Hyponatremia in Older
Adults, 62 J. Am. Geriatrics Soc’y 1206, 1206–07 (2014), filed as Ex. C (ECF No. 33-3); M.
21 Hyponatremia is a “deficiency of sodium in the blood.” Hyponatremia, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=24305&searchterm=hyponatremia (last visited Feb. 17,
2023).
22 Hyposmolality is “abnormally decreased osmolar concentration.” Hyposmolality, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary
Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=24393&searchterm=hyposmolarity (last visited Feb.
17, 2023).
15

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 16 of 42
Naherty et al., Pantoprazole Sodium–Induced Hyponatremia in a Frail Elderly Adult, 62 J. Am.
Geriatrics Soc’y 787, 787–88 (2014), filed as Ex. D (ECF No. 33-4); G. Liamis et al., A Review of
Drug-Induced Hyponatremia, 52 Am. J. Kidney Diseases 144, 150 (2008), filed as Ex. E (ECF
No. 33-5). Petitioner’s treaters also observed evidence of increased Corproporphyrin I and
Coproporphyrin III23—and although Dr. Vartanian characterized this to be a finding of unknown
significance, he also emphasized that elevated porphyrin levels are associated with diseases of the
peripheral and central nervous systems. Vartanian First Rep. at 6; Ex. 4 at 113; Ex. 10 at 3.
Despite the above, Dr. Vartanian’s questioning of the neuropathy diagnosis ultimately
turned on his interpretation of the EMG/NCS testing. Vartanian First Rep. at 9. By the time the
EMG/NCS was performed, and given the nature of Petitioner’s symptoms, there should have been
clear evidence of a demyelinating neuropathy. Yet, the EMG/NCS evidence indicated an axonal
neuropathy. Id.
Dr. Vartanian went on to discuss Dr. Steinman’s initial theory. While he did not review the
process of molecular mimicry in detail, he acknowledged that the concept finds medical/scientific
acceptance as relevant in some pathologic processes. Vartanian First Rep. at 6. He also agreed that
the general immunologic mechanisms leading to autoimmunity following vaccination would entail
the same mechanisms leading to autoimmunity following infection. Id. However, he listed four
criteria that must be satisfied in order to reliably conclude that the mechanism of molecular
mimicry has explanatory power in understanding a disease process: (1) establishment of an
underlying epidemiological association between the infectious agent and the disease in question;
(2) identification of T cells or antibodies directed against target antigens associated with the
disease; (3) identification of microbial mimics of the target antigen introduced by the exogenous
antigen; and (4) reproduction of the theoretic disease process in an animal model. Id.; Yuki at 706.
The contention that an infectious agent (or vaccine) contains one or more epitopes that share
structural characteristics with epitopes on host molecules may have a baseline plausibility, but
such a possibility alone cannot prove pathophysiologic causality without other factors being
established. Vartanian First Rep. at 7.
Dr. Vartanian also raised three key issues relevant to contentions that an autoimmune
disease process (whether driven by B or T cells) is occurring. Vartanian First Rep. at 7. First, he
observed that autoreactive cells and antibodies are widespread in humans. Id. at 7–8; E. Ellwardt
et al., Understanding the Role of T Cells in CNS Homeostasis, 37 Trends Immunology 154, 160
(2016), filed as Ex. G (ECF No. 33-7); D. Richards et al., Re-Examining the Nature and Function
23 Coproporphyrin is defined as “a porphyrin produced by oxidation of the methylene bridges in coproporphyrinogen.
Four isomers are possible, but only two exist naturally. Coproporphyrin III is excreted in the feces and urine in
hereditary coproporphyria and variegate porphyria, particularly during acute attacks. Coproporphyrin I is excreted in
the feces and urine in congenital erythropoietic porphyria.” Coproporphyrin, Dorland’s Medical Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=11082&searchterm=coproporphyrin (last visited Feb. 17,
2023).
16

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 17 of 42
of Self-Reactive T Cells, 37 Trends Immunology 114, 116–17 (2016), filed as Ex. H (ECF No. 33-
8). But their mere presence does not automatically connote pathogenicity. Vartanian First Rep. at
8. Second, he noted that naturally-occurring, self-reactive antibodies are actually thought to protect
against many of the toxic compounds that emerge with aging. Id. One study found that self-reactive
antibodies against beta amyloid24 (the proposed host-produced molecule that is pathogenic in
Alzheimer's disease), are protective, helping to clear away toxic protein. S. Sollvander et al.,
Increased Number of Plasma 8 Cells Producing Autoantibodies Against Aβ Protofibrils in
42
Alzheimer's Disease, 48 J. Alzheimer’s Disease 63, 67–69 (2015), filed as Ex. J (ECF No. 33-10).
And third, these same autoreactive cells and antibodies are also present in people with autoimmune
diseases. Vartanian First Rep. at 8. As a result, “fishing for auto-reactive cells or antibodies in
someone with bona fide autoimmune disease such as GBS is scientifically insufficient” to prove
that such immune cells are driving the disease process. Id. at 8–9; Gilburd at 23 (citing the
abstract).
Dr. Vartanian did not discuss Petitioner’s onset, other than to note that the time between
vaccine administration and the onset of his symptoms was within a reasonable range, although this
was meaningless given his view that the underlying theory had not been adequately substantiated.
Vartanian First Rep. at 9.
Second Report
Dr. Vartanian’s second report addressed succinctly some of the contentions in Dr.
Steinman’s supplemental report.
First, Dr. Vartanian revisited questions about the findings from Petitioner’s October 2015
EMG, completed three months after diagnosis and also after five days of IVIG treatment. Ex. 10
at 3; Vartanian Second Rep. at 1. In reaction to Dr. Steinman’s argument that the timing of this
testing (coupled with IVIG treatment) meant that it inherently was less likely to reveal neuropathic
signal/conduction issues, Dr. Vartanian maintained that even weeks or months after neuropathy
onset, EMG/NCS testing should yield abnormal results if the patient remains symptomatic, as here.
Id.
Dr. Vartanian also disagreed with Dr. Steinman’s assertion that treater interpretations of
the EMG results were consistent with neuropathy. In Dr. Vartanian’s view, Dr. Shah had referred
to the diagnosis as sensory predominant solely because in his interpretation of the data, sensory
fiber abnormalities dominated the pathology. Vartanian Second Rep. at 1. This did not mean that
the results otherwise showed motor conduction loss, as well. He also observed that Dr. Shah had
24 Amyloid beta is defined as “an abnormal, neurotoxic peptide, either 40 or 42 amino acids in length, found in
aggregates in the cerebrovascular walls and the cores of the plaques in Alzheimer disease.” Aβ amyloid, Dorland’s
Medical Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=55861 (last visited Feb. 17,
2023).
17

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 18 of 42
written that the f-wave latencies could suggest a more proximal lesion, but in Dr. Vartanian’s
understanding a diagnosis from an EMG/NCS is not made based on a singly inquiry of f-waves,
h-reflexes, or compound motor action potential amplitudes, but is instead the aggregate of findings
and the clinical setting. Id. at 2. Thus, Dr. Vartanian maintained again that the overall EMG
findings were not fully supportive of an AIDP-like neuropathy.
Second, Dr. Vartanian defended his prior assertions that insufficient evidence supported
molecular mimicry as a reliable explanation in this context for Petitioner’s alleged vaccine-caused
injury. Vartanian Second Rep. at 1–2. He was not demanding that Dr. Steinman provide research-
oriented findings specific to the Petitioner that were impossible to obtain, but rather was noting an
absence of independent evidence supporting Dr. Steinman’s causal contentions. Id. at 2.
2. J. Lindsay Whitton, M.D., Ph.D. – Dr. Whitton, an immunologist, submitted
an expert report for the Respondent in support of the argument that the pneumococcal vaccine
cannot cause GBS. Report, dated April 29, 2022, filed as Ex. M (ECF No. 77-1) (“Whitton Rep.”).
Dr. Whitton opined that the initial version of Dr. Steinman’s theory was foundationally erroneous,
and he deemed baseless the contention that the phosphoglycerol/glycerophosphate-containing25
polysaccharides in certain pneumococcal vaccine antigens could induce an antibody response that
causes GBS.
Dr. Whitton obtained his undergraduate, medical, and doctorate degrees from the
University of Glasgow in Scotland. Curriculum Vitae, filed as Ex. N on April 29, 2022 (ECF No.
77-2) (“Whitton CV”) at 1; Whitton Rep. at 1. He then began working as a senior research associate
at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, where he studied immunology,
vaccinology, and viral pathogenesis. Whitton CV at 1; Whitton Rep. at 1. Dr. Whitton has
conducted extensive research in these subject areas and has published numerous articles on the
subjects. Whitton CV at 2–15. In addition to his research, Dr. Whitton also serves as a professor
in the department of Immunology and Microbial Science at Scripps Research Institute. Whitton
CV at 1. In both his research and teaching, Dr. Whitton has focused on viral pathogenesis, innate
and adaptive immune responses, and molecular mimicry. Whitton Rep. at 1–2. Dr. Whitton does
not have board certification in the United States to practice medicine. Id. at 2.
Dr. Whitton did not offer an opinion as to the propriety of Petitioner’s diagnosis,26 but
instead focused on the issue of causation. He began with a lengthy discussion of the pneumococcal
25 Dr. Steinman’s reports frequently employ the term phosphoglycerol, but Dr. Whitton argued that he actually meant
to refer to glycerophosphate. Whitton Rep. at 5 n.e.
26 Dr. Whitton did include a review of the features of GBS. See Whitton Rep. at 8–11. I will refer elsewhere to some
of the points he made therein, although otherwise this aspect of his opinion does not require summary (and clinical
aspects of GBS are topics beyond his expertise in any event).
18

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 19 of 42
vaccine itself. Whitton Rep. at 3–8. The vaccine aims to immunize against a bacterial infection
caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, or “pneumococcus.” Id. at 3. The S. pneumoniae bacterium
is surrounded by a “capsule” made of polysaccharides.27 Id. at 3–4. There are close to 100
serotypes28 of pneumococcus, which are distinguished based on their having structurally-different
polysaccharide capsules. Id. at 5. Some S. pneumoniae polysaccharides (including strains included
in the Prevnar form of the pneumococcal vaccine) contain modifications, such as the chemical
linkage of glycerophosphate (which Dr. Whitton deemed a “small molecule”). Id.
In addition, Dr. Whitton explained the “conjugated” character of the pneumococcal
vaccine. Although adults can mount a robust immune response when exposed simply to the naked
bacterial polysaccharides, it has been found that children (especially infants) do not. Whitton Rep.
at 6. As a result, to boost the immune response (and in particular the intended production of
antibodies to the S. pneumoniae bacterium), the vaccine’s antigenic components are linked, or
conjugated, to a protein that “can trigger a reasonably strong T cell response” (and in this case Dr.
Whitton referred to “T helper cells”—a lymphocyte that assists B cells in production of
antibodies).29
Only the conjugated version of the pneumococcal vaccine is “covered” by the Vaccine
Program,30 and many studies have noted not only its general safety, but the fact that it (or the
antigenic components common to both versions) is not associated with an increased risk of
disease—including GBS. Whitton Rep. at 7-8; R. Baxter et al., Lack of Association of Guillain-
Barre Syndrome with Vaccinations, 57 Clinical Infection Diseases 197, 201 (2013), filed as Ex.
M, Tab 6 (ECF No. 78-6) (“Baxter”) (Pneumovax 23 vaccine (containing 12 of the 13 Prevnar
antigenic components) poses no increased risk of GBS); P. Haber et al., Post-Licensure
Surveillance of 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) in Adults Aged 19 Years
Old in the United States, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), June 1, 2012–
27 Polysaccharides are made up of sugar molecules and occur throughout nature. Whitton Rep. at 3–4. This kind of
molecule is distinguishable from a protein (comprised of chains of amino acids). Id. Amino acids contain only two
attachment points, so the amino acid chains have a linear character. Id. at 4. Sugars, on the other hand, have several
different points at which they can link, resulting in different molecular orientations. Id. at 4–5; J. Prestegard et al.,
Oligosaccharides and Polysaccharides, Essentials of Glycobiology 1, 4 (2017), filed as Ex. M, Tab 1 (ECF No. 78-
1). Thus, the pneumococcal vaccine will “teach” the immune system to respond to specific strains it “sees” (based on
the vaccine’s formulation), but not others. Whitton Rep. at 5.
28 According to Dr. Whitton, serotype means “this organism is distinguished from related organisms on the basis of
how it is recognized by the antibody response.” Whitton Rep. at 5.
29 For a discussion of the conjugate’s function, see Bielak v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-761V, 2022 WL
18058244, at *31 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 9, 2022).
30 Another version—Pneumovax 23—is not similarly conjugated, and because it is only recommended for adults,
cannot be the basis of a Program claim. Whitton Rep. at 6; Louvaris v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-416V,
2021 WL 4955690, at *1–2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 27, 2021)
19

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 20 of 42
December 31, 2015, 34 Vaccine 6330, 6330, 6333–34 (2016), filed as Ex. M, Tab 7 (ECF No. 78-
7) (“Haber”) (noting no reported relationship between the pneumococcal vaccine and GBS through
a data mining analysis of VAERS31 data); H. Tseng et al., Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Safety
in Elderly Adults, Open Forum Infectious Diseases 1, 1 (2018), filed as Ex. M, Tab 8 (ECF No.
78-8) (“Tseng”) (“[t]hese data do not support an increased rate of adverse events following PCV13
administration in elders compared with PPSV23 and should provide reassurance regarding
continued use of PCV13”).
Dr. Whitton then turned to the primary contentions contained in Dr. Steinman’s reports.
He spent little time with the first iteration of Petitioner’s causal theory: that “phospholipids” in the
pneumococcal vaccine could mimic phospholipid components or structures in the nerve myelin,
leading to an autoimmune cross-reactive process. In Dr. Whitton’s estimation, this version of the
theory was utterly baseless, for the simple reason that the vaccine could not reasonably said to
contain phospholipids themselves. Whitton Rep. at 14–15. Rather, Dr. Steinman appeared to have
assumed that materials present “in the intact bacterium” were also found in the vaccine, when they
were not, or had confused the names of different kinds of molecules (specifically,
phosphocholine—not a phospholipid, with phosphatidyl choline (which is)). Id. at 15. And Dr.
Whitton otherwise noted that Dr. Steinman had provided no affirmative proof for his underlying
contention that phospholipids were found in the vaccine. Id.
By contrast, Dr. Whitton admitted that between two and four of the Prevnar vaccine’s 13
strains possessed a glycerophosphate-containing polysaccharide—opening the door to Dr.
Steinman’s theory (set forth in his revised third report) that this molecule could cause an immune
response, resulting in the production of antibodies to it that would in turn cross-react with
mimicking structures contained in myelin phospholipids. Whitton Rep. at 17.32 But Dr. Whitton
still found significant fault in the theory—for reasons both general and specific.
First, Dr. Whitton raised a fundamental question: if Dr. Steinman’s theory about the
pneumococcal vaccine had validity, a wild S. pneumoniae infection should also be capable of
causing GBS (presumably by triggering the same autoimmune response via molecular mimicry,
since the glycerophosphates should be found in the wild bacterium antigens). Whitton Rep. at 6.
However, there is no convincing scientific evidence linking prior S. pneumoniae infection to GBS.
31 VAERS is a database maintained by the CDC to compile information from reports about reactions to immunizations
listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–14(a). See About VAERS, VAERS, https://vaers
hhs.gov/abouthtml (last visited Feb. 17, 2023).
32 Dr. Whitton noted, however, that Dr. Steinman baselessly contended that all the vaccine’s 13 polysaccharide
components were conjugated to CRM “via phosphoglycerol.” Whitton Rep. at 22. But if the phosphoglycerol served
197
this specific function, it would be altered in the process—thus eliminating the vaccine’s antigenicity (since Dr.
Steinman had otherwise maintained that conservation of “glycerol-phosphate” in the vaccine was critical to its
function). Id. at 23 (citing Chang at 7090).
20

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 21 of 42
Id. at 6, 9. Rather, a large number of Jasti kinds of infections, viral or bacterial, had been associated
with GBS, but no mention was ever made of pneumococcus. Id. at 9–10. He differentiated
pneumococcus from another bacterium, C. jejuni, far more understood to be associated with GBS.
Id. at 9; A. Jasti et al., Guillain-Barre Syndrome: Causes, Immunopathogenic Mechanisms and
Treatment, 12 Expert Rev. Clinical Immunology 1175, 1176 (2016), filed as Ex. M, Tab 19 (ECF
No. 78-19) (“Jasti”) at 1176 (finding that a C. jejuni infection is believed to precede 30–40 percent
of GBS cases).33
This raised another problem, from Dr. Whitton’s perspective, for a causal theory proposing
that antigens derived from S. pneumoniae could be as causal of GBS as different bacteria like C.
jejuni. Some bacteria known to be associated with GBS are “gram negative,”34 (meaning their poly
saccharide capsule is “thin”) but S. pneumoniae is “gram positive,” or thick. Whitton Rep. at 10.
Indeed, all but one of the wild bacteria already understood to be potentially causal of GBS are
gram negative. Whitton Rep. at 10; Jasti at 1176. The absence of any standard gram-positive
bacteria from the list is striking, according to Dr. Whitton, and is consistent with the notion that
bacteria like S. pneumoniae do not contain the molecules necessary to trigger GBS. Whitton Rep.
at 11.
Second, Dr. Whitton questioned whether the molecular mimicry mechanism relied upon
by Dr. Steinman could be applied in every disease context. He did not dispute the theory’s core
scientific reliability, or that GBS can in some cases be mediated by a molecular mimicry process
involving cross-reactive antibodies to different pathogens. Whitton Rep. at 8. But molecular
component homology (especially when only short sequences were considered) is common in
nature, with “no meaningful biologic effect.” Id. at 36. As a result (and somewhat parallel to what
Dr. Vartanian had noted), a number of intermediate “steps” were required for molecular mimicry
not only to occur but also to result in disease. Whitton Rep. at 12–13. This made it “extraordinarily
difficult” for molecular mimicry to result in autoimmune disease. Dr. Whitton noted that well-
regarded experts on the topic (such as the late Dr. Noel Rose, the “father of autoimmunity”) had
33 Dr. Whitton also provided an intriguing hypothesis for why the C. jejuni bacterium would be causal of GBS. As he
explained, gangliosides on nerve myelin (which are understood to be a common target for cross-reactive antibodies in
GBS) might be mimicked by “ganglioside-like structures” that C. jejuni causes to be expressed—meaning that
antibodies the body generates to an infection of that bacterium end up cross-reacting with the host gangliosides.
Whitton Rep. at 9; I. Nachamkin et al., Campylobacter Species and Guillain-Barré Syndrome, 11 Clinical
Microbiology Rev.’s 555, 557 (1998), filed as Ex. M, Tab 20 (ECF No. 78-19). This offers yet another distinction
between infectious bacteria known to be associated with GBS and S. Pneumoniae—since Dr. Steinman has not
proposed in this case that the pneumococcus bacterium does the same (and in fact proposes a different target antigen
entirely).
34 Bacteria can be subdivided into two groups based on their cell walls, using a procedure called gram staining. Whitton
Rep. at 10–11. Gram-positive bacteria have thick capsules with no outer membrane, and S. pneumoniae in particular
is composed mainly of polysaccharides that are used in the pneumococcal vaccine. Id.; G. Zhang et al., On the
Essentiality of Lipopolysaccharide to Gram-Negative Bacteria, 16 Current Op. Microbiology 779, 779 (2013), filed
as Ex. M, Tab 21 (ECF No. 78-21) (“Zhang II”). In contrast, gram-negative bacteria have a flimsy capsule that is
surrounded by an outer membrane. Whitton Rep. at 10–11; Zhang II at 779.
21

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 22 of 42
expressed skepticism about how widely the theory could be applied, even if the theory had
underlying reliability. N. Rose & I. Mackay, Molecular Mimicry: A Critical Look at Exemplary
Instances in Human Diseases, 57 Cellular & Molecular Life Sci.’s 542, 542 (2000), filed as Ex.
M, Tab 22 (ECF No. 78-22) (“[t]here are, as yet, no firm instances of molecular mimicry by
microorganisms serving as the initiating agents of human autoimmune disease, although a great
deal of attention has been paid to this issue”).
Another particularly important sub-component of any theory relying on molecular mimicry
as causing a disease like GBS was the need to identify a host target for the autoimmune attack—a
locus containing some molecular structure resembling the antigenic component of an infection (or,
as alleged here, vaccine). Whitton Rep. at 12–13. But Dr. Steinman had not established that
phospholipids associated with nerve myelin were such likely targets. Id. at 19–21. To support this
contention, Dr. Steinman had referenced Ho, even though it was specific to MS. Id. at 19; Ho at 1.
A second such article, Kanter, not only also involved only MS, but actually differentiated between
the antigenic target in GBS and other autoimmune diseases. Kanter at 138 (“[a]utoimmune
responses directed against phospholipids and gangliosides contribute to the pathogenesis in
systemic lupus erythematosus and [GBS], respectively”) (emphasis added).35
In fact, Dr. Whitton maintained, it was well understood by medical science that
gangliosides were a likely target for cross-reactive antibodies in the pathogenesis of GBS. Whitton
Rep. at 9; Jasti at 1177; R. Hughes & J. Rees, Clinical and Epidemiologic Features of Guillain-
Barre Syndrome, 176 J. Infectious Diseases S92, S92 (1997), filed as Ex. M, Tab 13 (ECF No. 78-
13) (“Hughes I”); J. Kwan & S. Biliciler, Guillain-Barre Syndrome and Other Acute
Polyneuropathies, 37 Clinics Geriatric Med. 313, 318 (2021), filed as Ex. M, Tab 26 (ECF No.
78-26) (“Kwan”). By contrast, such authorities made no mention at all of phospholipids or
phosphoglycerol as a putative autoimmune target. Whitton Rep. at 30; R. Hughes et al., Guillain-
Barré Syndrome in the 100 Years Since its Description by Guillain, Barré and Strohl, 139 Brain
3041 (2016), filed as Ex. M, Tab 24 (ECF No. 78-24) (“Hughes II”); (numerous mention of anti-
ganglioside antibodies as driving GBS, but no mention at all of antibodies targeting
phosphoglycerols); Kwan at 318 (“[i]t is postulated that the epitopes on the surface of pathogens
mimic components of the peripheral nerve ganglioside, triggering an aberrant activation of the
immune system”) (emphasis added). Otherwise, Dr. Steinman’s evidence only showed that anti-
phospholipid antibodies could be found in the blood sera of GBS patients—not that these
antibodies were primarily causal of GBS at its outset, or could even be said to have any
demonstrated relationship to disease severity. See generally Whitton Rep. at 29; Gilburd at 27;
Nakos at 1401, 1406.
35 The term “respectively,” it should be noted, functions in the quoted sentence from Kanter to distinguish between
the antigenic target in lupus (phospholipids) and that of GBS (gangliosides). It cannot be reasonably parsed to mean
that both targets are equally relevant to these two disparate autoimmune diseases.
22

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 23 of 42
Dr. Whitton also focused specifically on Dr. Steinman’s core contention reflected in his
third report: that phosphoglycerol/glycerolphosphate found in a minority of the S. pneumoniae
strains contained in the vaccine could prompt an autoimmune antibody reaction. Whitton Rep. at
17–30. First, he observed that the relatively small size of the phosphoglycerol molecule made it
“extremely unlikely” that it could trigger an immune response leading to production of an antibody
that would in turn (mistakenly) recognize a host tissue mimic on the myelin. Id. at 17. The
established size of the molecule was inconsistent with what science viewed as necessary to induce
an antibody response. Id. at 17–18. Dr. Whitton conceded that attachment of phosphoglycerol to a
larger molecule made such a reaction more possible, and that some literature offered by Petitioner
(Bryson, for example) supported the contention—but then the purported cross-reaction would
require an antibody to recognize the same “phosphoglycerol plus carrier molecule” combination
in a host tissue (something he maintained Dr. Steinman had not at all demonstrated). Id. at 18–19.
Second, Dr. Whitton deemed it speculative for Dr. Steinman to presume that
phosphoglycerol was the ultimate target for the proposed cross-reactive autoimmune attack. Much
of the literature Dr. Steinman relied upon, like Ho, was specific to MS and “brain lipids,” and thus
was being stretched to cover the distinguishable context of a peripheral neuropathy. Whitton Rep.
at 23. Indeed, Ho made no mention at all of phosphoglycerol. Id. And although Dr. Steinman
employed an imprecise array of terms to cover the antigens he deemed responsible for this
mimicking autoimmune process (phosphocholine, phosphoglycerol/glycerophosphate, etc.), only
one was “truly common to some phospholipids and to the glycerophosphate-containing bacterial
polysaccharides”—but it was also so “ubiquitous in biology” that the theory in effect led to the
possibility of “many billions of potential targets” and far more widespread occurrences of disease
due to molecular mimicry than were actually experienced. Id. at 24.
In fact, Dr. Whitton maintained, Dr. Steinman had not persuasively established any likely
target host antigen for this purported cross-reaction by antibodies responding to the vaccine’s
phosphoglycerol sub-components. Whitton Rep. at 19–30. Dr. Steinman (relying on articles like
Ho, Gilburd, or Nakos) maintained that the sera of GBS patients could be shown to include
antibodies to “various phospholipids.” Nakos at 1405–07.36 But Dr. Whitton proposed in response
(comparable to his argument that the vaccine did not literally contain “phospholipids”) that the
host tissue phospholipids themselves likely did not contain the purportedly cross-reacting
phosphoglycerol. Whitton Rep. at 25. Putting aside the generally low possibility that
phosphoglycerol found in a polysaccharide would generate an antibody that would in turn react to
phosphoglycerol found in a lipid,37 the alleged target host phospholipids were, at best, “built” from
36 Even when an anti-phospholipid antibody could be demonstrated to exist, it was not clear, Dr. Whitton contended,
why some antibodies arguably “recognized” phospholipids while others did not. Whitton Rep. at 29–30; Ho at 8.
37 A lipid, it bears noting, is a class of organic compounds including fatty acids or their derivatives that are insoluble
in water but soluble in organic solvents. Lipid, Dorland's Medical Dictionary Online,
23

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 24 of 42
glycerophosphate whose chemical structure was altered in the course, meaning that “what is left
is no longer glycerophosphate.” Id. at 25, 26. In effect, like an egg used to bake a cake, the
molecular “ingredients” were transformed into something different than their original
constituency. Id. at 25. Thus, any glycerophosphate attached to one of the vaccine’s
polysaccharides would not possess a mimic in the host tissue phospholipid. Id. at 27–28. At
bottom, “Dr. Steinman’s approach to biochemistry, chemistry, and molecular structure . . . is
inaccurate.” Id. at 28.
Dr. Whitton called into question the remaining aspects of Dr. Steinman’s theory. He
disputed, for example, the contention that the vaccine’s conjugate contained a mimic to contactin-
I (a nervous system protein) sufficient for antibodies generated in response to the vaccine to cross-
react. Whitton Rep. at 30–31. In so doing, he commented at length on the limitations of Dr.
Steinman’s use of BLAST searches38 to identify homologous amino acid sequences, noting that
(a) the BLAST database was arguably being improperly used by Dr. Steinman “to try to identify
possibly-immunologically-significant tracts of protein,” when the database served a more general
purpose, and (b) the short homologic sequences that Dr. Steinman looked for and defended as
meaningful were not deserving of “immunological weight.” Id. at 32–33. But Dr. Whitton also
argued that the homologic amino acid sequences Dr. Steinman found between contactin and
CRM were “cherry picked,” with Dr. Steinman focusing only on the results that supported his
197
contentions while ignoring the unhelpful results. Id. at 34–36.
Ultimately, Dr. Whitton concluded that no evidence beyond the homologies revealed via
BLAST searches supported the possibility of a cross-reaction with the conjugate. Dr. Steinman
had offered a paper specific to evaluating the parts of a diphtheria protein recognizable by human
T helper cells. Whitton Rep. at 40; R. Raju et al., Epitopes for Human CD4+ Cells on Diphtheria
Toxin: Structural Features of Sequence Segments Forming Epitopes Recognized by Most Subjects,
25 Eur. J. Immunology 3207, 3207 (1995), filed as Ex. 54 (ECF No. 68-14) (“Raju”). But the
CRM protein was distinguishable,39 and Raju did not show that antibodies generated to it
197
specifically would cross-react with contactin (let alone via a short amino acid sequence), but
instead focused on the generation of T helper cells in reaction to the diphtheria toxin itself. Whitton
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=28385&searchterm=lipid (last visited Feb. 17, 2023). This is
wholly different from a sugar.
38 Dr. Whitton similarly criticized Dr. Steinman’s “filter funnel” framework for how he reasoned his way to the
conclusion that the homologies he demonstrated via BLAST searches reliably established a likely cross-reaction.
Whitton Rep. at 38-40. He deemed this analytic approach to not only include a number of faulty stages (such as the
very effort of looking for homologous sequences), but ultimately reflected circular logic, allowing Dr. Steinman to
reach in any case the result most favorable to a petitioner. Id. at 40.
39 As I noted in a different decision, CRM is lab-created, and although it is comparable to diphtheria toxin, it is not
197
the same, reducing the value of analogizing the results of research articles like Raju. Deshler, 2020 WL 4593162, at
*11.
24

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 25 of 42
Rep. at 41. Indeed, the stimulation of helper cells by diphtheria was a foregone conclusion intended
by its inclusion in the vaccine—and so Dr. Steinman’s reference to it was not some critical insight
showing how the conjugate might aberrantly spark an autoimmune disease. Id. at 42–43.
The idea that the vaccine’s alum adjuvant could amplify a presumed autoimmune reaction
by enhancing neuroinflammation was similarly dismissed by Dr. Whitton. He noted that Dr.
Steinman offered no literature on the contention specific to vaccination and GBS, but rather relied
on broader statements about the effect of adjuvants in vaccines generally—to stimulate the kind of
pro-inflammatory cytokines that can be seen also in some autoinflammatory diseases like GBS.
Whitton Rep. at 43. But these two propositions were not linked with independent persuasive
evidence showing a causal relationship. In effect, Dr. Whitton deemed this argument to amount to
a contention made in Program cases by other experts that vaccines can be causal of disease via
“autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants,” or “ASIA”—a concept Dr.
Whitton proposed possessed “numerous fatal flaws,” and that had been “widely discredited.” Id.
at 43.
III. Procedural History
As noted, the Petition in this matter was filed nearly seven years ago. Pet. at 1. Respondent
filed a Rule 4(c) Report on October 3, 2016, contesting Petitioner’s right to compensation. ECF
No. 16. Expert reports were filed through the summer of 2021. After the matter was transferred to
me (on March 3, 2021), I held a status conference with the parties and subsequently set a schedule
for a ruling on the record. The parties fully briefed the matter and submitted an additional round
of expert reports by June 2022, and it is now ripe for resolution. ECF Nos. 72, 76–77, 79–80.
IV. Parties’ Arguments
A. Petitioner
Petitioner maintains that he has met his causation-in-fact burden based on the factors
established by the Federal Circuit in Althen v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed.
Cir. 2005); Mot. at 17–24; Reply at 2–12. Statements from Petitioner’s expert, he purports, support
his contention that the pneumococcal vaccine can cause GBS through the theory of molecular
mimicry—specifically, that the phosphoglycerol in the vaccine mimics phospholipids within
myelin, thereby initiating an autoimmune reaction (a theory that was first introduced in Dr.
Steinman’s Third Expert Report). Mot. at 6–9, 17–18; Reply at 4. Petitioner’s expert also identified
a second potential mimic between the CRM protein component used to conjugate the
197
pneumococcal polysaccharides in the vaccine and a human immune response that attack the
contactin-1 molecule by employing a “filter funnel” approach that utilizes BLAST searches. Mot.
at 9; Reply at 7. He also argues that the aluminum adjuvant present in the vaccine is a known
stimulant of cytokines that contribute to GBS. Mot. at 9; Reply at 4–5.
25

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 26 of 42
Mr. Trollinger next claims that he has demonstrated a logical sequence of cause and effect
that the pneumococcal vaccine “did cause” his injuries. He relied on findings in another case to
analogize his own showing as similarly successful. Maloney v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
19-1713V, 2022 WL 1074087, at *32–35 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 17, 2022) (finding three
principal reasons to satisfy the second Althen prong: 1) petition was appropriately diagnosed with
GBS and proffered a sound and reliable mechanism of vaccine causation; 2) statements offered by
petitioner’s treating physicians provided supportive evidence; and 3) the evidence did not support
an alternative cause for petitioner’s injury); Mot. at 18–21; Reply at 8–9. Finally, the timing of his
onset—approximately 10 days after receiving his pneumococcal vaccine—constituted in
Petitioner’s view a medically-acceptable timeframe, given filed literature on the timeline
consistent with GBS and the 1976 swine flu vaccinations (even though the flu vaccine is not at
issue in this case). Mot. at 21; Reply at 9–10. Reply at 14–15. Petitioner relied upon previous
pneumococcal/GBS cases, which utilized the evidence presented in Schonberger to support the
third Althen prong. Maloney, 2022 WL 1074087, at *36; Koller v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 16-439V, 2021 WL 5027947, at *20–23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 8, 2021) (citing
Schonberger with acknowledgement from both experts that there is a lack of other studies that
would provide a timeframe for the onset of GBS following vaccination); Mot. at 21–22; Reply at
9–10.
Petitioner also specifically addressed a 2020 GBS/pneumococcal case in which I denied
entitlement, in an effort to differentiate this case and the showing he has made herein. Deshler v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1070V, 2020 WL 4593162 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 1,
2020). Petitioner’s expert was not involved in Deshler, he notes, and Dr. Steinman’s analysis of
phosphoglycerol as the agent of molecular mimicry was not posited. Reply at 11–12. For these
two reasons, Petitioner argues that Deshler is not relevant to my analysis. Id. Instead, he argues
that Koller—another case decided by a different special master that granted entitlement—should
cast guidance on this determination. Koller, 2021 WL 5027947. Both cases involved Petitioner’s
expert and one of Respondent’s experts in this case (Dr. Whitton), argued the same proposed
theory, and used the same literature. Reply at 12.
B. Respondent
In opposing entitlement, Respondent argues that the Althen prongs have not been satisfied.
Opp. at 11–23. Thus, Petitioner has not preponderantly established a reliable medical theory
causally connecting his vaccination to GBS as the theory is too generic to be persuasive in a
specific case and the underlying theories have a host of deficiencies. Id. at 11. Respondent argues
it is insufficient to simply demonstrate some evidence of shared homology and the presence of
autoreactive T cells, because while molecular mimicry exists, it rarely leads to disease. Id. at 14–
15. Additionally, Dr. Steinman’s self-fulfilling BLAST searches are not probative of causation. Id.
26

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 27 of 42
at 16. In all, Petitioner’s expert provides no scientific support for any association between the
pneumococcal vaccine and GBS, but relies on data that exists from the flu vaccine, and he does
not present literature discussing the role of alum in GBS specifically even though Respondent’s
expert emphasized that alum adjuvants have an excellent safety record. Id. at 12–13, 16–17.
Under Althen prong two, Respondent argues, Petitioner puts forth no independent
evidence, but instead relies on evidence for prongs one and three. Opp. at 20. Although some
treaters have referred to the temporal association between receipt of vaccination and development
of GBS, these notations are general and do not identify the precise vaccine or date received. Id.
Similar to Deshler, Respondent argues that “although the treater views in this case do aid
Petitioner’s showing, they ultimately relied too much on the obvious temporal relationship
between vaccination and injury to carry Petitioner’s ‘did cause’ burden.” Deshler, 2020 WL
4593162, at *21. And Petitioner’s showing under Althen prong three also fails, because it relies on
Schonberger, which links GBS and the 1976 swine flu vaccine—a totally different vaccine that
does not contain any aluminum adjuvants—like the vaccine herein. Id. at 21. Respondent further
contends that the Petitioner here relied on a similar theory used in Deshler, and that Petitioner has
not offered any compelling reasons for the Court to reach a different conclusion in this case. Reply
at 16.
V. Applicable Law
A. Standards for Vaccine Claims
To receive compensation in the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either: (1) that
he suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—
corresponding to one of the vaccinations in question within a statutorily prescribed period of time
or, in the alternative, (2) that his illnesses were actually caused by a vaccine (a “Non-Table
Injury”). See Sections 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1), and 14(a), as amended by 42 C.F.R. § 100.3; §
11(c)(1)(C)(ii)(I); see also Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed.
Cir. 2010); Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).40
In this case, Petitioner cannot assert a Table claim (as there is no such claim with respect to the
pneumococcal vaccine).
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
40 Decisions of special masters (some of which I reference in this ruling) constitute persuasive but not binding
authority. Hanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 625, 630 (1998). By contrast, Federal Circuit rulings
concerning legal issues are binding on special masters. Guillory v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 59 Fed. Cl. 121,
124 (2003), aff’d 104 F. Appx. 712 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Spooner v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-159V,
2014 WL 504728, at *7 n.12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 16, 2014).
27

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 28 of 42
existence.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322 n.2; see also Snowbank Enter. v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct.
476, 486 (1984) (mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard).
Proof of medical certainty is not required. Bunting v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 931 F.2d
867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In particular, 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 & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344,
1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 of the Althen prongs requires a different showing. 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 & Hum. Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Such a theory must
only be “legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.” Knudsen, 35 F.3d at 549.
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 & Hum. 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. Accordingly, special masters must take care not to increase the burden
placed on petitioners in offering a scientific theory linking vaccine to injury. Contreras, 121 Fed.
Cl. at 245.
In discussing the evidentiary standard applicable to the first Althen prong, the Federal
Circuit has consistently rejected the contention that it can be satisfied merely by establishing the
proposed causal theory’s scientific or medical plausibility. See Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 941 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also LaLonde v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
28

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 29 of 42
746 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[h]owever, in the past we have made clear that simply
identifying a ‘plausible’ theory of causation is insufficient for a petitioner to meet her burden of
proof” (citing Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322)). And petitioners always have the ultimate burden of
establishing their overall Vaccine Act claim with preponderant evidence. W.C. v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 704 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted); Tarsell v. United States,
133 Fed. Cl. 782, 793 (2017) (noting that Moberly “addresses the petitioner’s overall burden of
proving causation-in-fact under the Vaccine Act” by a preponderance standard).
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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Medical records and statements of a treating physician, however, 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 & Hum. 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 be weighed against other, contrary
evidence also present in the record—including conflicting opinions among such individuals.
Hibbard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 742, 749 (2011) (not arbitrary or capricious
for special master to weigh competing treating physicians’ conclusions against each other), aff’d,
698 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Veryzer v. Sec’y of Dept. of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-522V,
2011 WL 1935813, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2011), mot. for review den’d, 100 Fed.
Cl. 344, 356 (2011), aff’d without opinion, 475 F. Appx. 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
29

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 30 of 42
understanding of the disorder’s etiology, it is medically acceptable to infer causation.” de Bazan
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The explanation for what
is a medically acceptable timeframe must align 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 & Hum.
Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532, 542 (2011), recons. denied after remand, 105 Fed. Cl. 353 (2012), aff’d
mem., 503 F. Appx. 952 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Koehn v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-355V,
2013 WL 3214877 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 30, 2013), mot. for review den’d, (Fed. Cl. Dec. 3,
2013), aff’d, 773 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
B. Law Governing 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 & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(determining that it is within the special master's discretion to determine whether to afford 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).
As noted by the Federal Circuit, “[m]edical records, in general, warrant consideration as
trustworthy evidence.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528; Doe/70 v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. 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 & Hum.
Servs., 468 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential opinion). A series of linked
propositions explains why such records deserve some weight: (i) sick people visit medical
professionals; (ii) sick people attempt to 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 & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V,
2013 WL 1880825, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013); Cucuras v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 26 Cl. Ct. 537, 543 (1992), aff'd, 993 F.2d 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
30

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 31 of 42
be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03–1585V, 2005 WL
6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). Indeed, contemporaneous medical records
are often 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 & Hum. 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, the Federal Circuit has also noted that there is no formal “presumption” that
records are accurate or superior on their face to other forms of evidence. Kirby v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). There are certainly 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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
& Hum. 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.
31

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 32 of 42
C. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., 617 F.3d 1328, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (citing Terran v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 195 F.3d 1302, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Under Daubert, the factors for analyzing the reliability of testimony are:
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).
In the Vaccine Program the Daubert factors play a slightly different role than they do when
applied in other federal judicial settings, like 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 &
Hum. Servs., 94 Fed. Cl. 53, 66–67 (2010) (“uniquely in this Circuit, the 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum.
Servs., No. 08–601V, 2012 WL 3609993, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2012), mot. for
32

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 33 of 42
review denied, 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 & Hum. 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”).
D. Consideration of Medical Literature
Both parties filed numerous items of medical and scientific literature in this case, but not
every filed item factors 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 Petitioner’s case—just as I have not exhaustively discussed
every individual medical record filed. Moriarty v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 844 F.3d 1322,
1328 (Fed. Cir. 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 & Hum. Servs., 527 F. Appx. 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”).
E. Standards for Ruling on the Record
I am resolving Petitioner’s claim on the filed record, and the parties have not challenged
my determination to do so. Mot. at 1; Opp. at 1. 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 & Hum. Servs., 945 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2020); see also Hooker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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
& Hum. 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 &
Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 71500, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 1991).
33

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 34 of 42
ANALYSIS
I. Overview of Relevant Medical Terms and Prior Decisions
It is well understood that GBS is an acute, monophasic peripheral neuropathy involving
rapidly progressive and ascending motor neuron paralysis, which is thought to have an
autoimmune mechanism. Yuki at 691. Although its etiology is mostly unknown, two-thirds of
GBS cases follow an antecedent infection (typically an upper respiratory tract or gastrointestinal
infection) beginning a few weeks prior to symptoms onset. Id. at 691–92. A GBS diagnosis
requires a thorough medical assessment involving the patient’s clinical presentation, plus other
kinds of diagnostic testing, such as nerve conduction studies or CSF analysis. Id. at 692.
Much is known about not only GBS’s likely pathogenesis (albeit in defined circumstances
pertinent to certain variants), but also its association with one particular vaccine covered by the
Program: the flu vaccine. There are several evidentiary components supporting this association, as
I have discussed in other cases. Bielak v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-761V, 2022 WL
18058244, at *34 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 9, 2022). And these evidentiary components have
been deemed sufficient to preponderantly demonstrate the flu vaccine can likely cause GBS.41
Mason v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1383V, 2022 WL 600415, at *26 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 4, 2022) (noting that the flu vaccine-GBS association is supported by a “mix of (a)
knowledge about how molecular mimicry “works” in GBS's pathogenesis, (b) trustworthy animal
experiments that model demyelinating injuries in the context of the molecular mimicry
mechanism, and (c) solid (if somewhat old) epidemiologic evidence . . . establishing a higher
incidence of GBS after vaccination when compared to an unvaccinated population”).
As a result, too many well-reasoned decisions to count have found the issue resolved (at
least for purposes of deciding Program cases). See, e.g., Chinea v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 15-095V, 2019 WL 1873322 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 15, 2019); Strong v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 15-1108V, 2018 WL 1125666 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 12, 2018); Stitt v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 09-653V, 2013 WL 3356791 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31,
2013); Stewart v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 06-777V, 2011 WL 3241585, at *16 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 8, 2011). Such cases often also rely on the theory of molecular mimicry,
proposing that antibodies produced by B cells in response to a vaccine’s viral antigen components
can cross-attack the myelin sheath (because the target antigen and gangliosides of the myelin
sheath share structural homology), thereby causing demyelination of peripheral nerves. Chinea,
2019 WL 1873322, at *15.42
41 Of course, it is axiomatic that prior decisions do not bind my determination herein. Rather, I decide this case based
on the evidence before me. However, it is not only useful, but prudent, to take into account prior determinations—
both for guidance and to avoid “reinventing the wheel” when deciding like Program cases.
42 Indeed, the relevant science was convincing enough to the Government that GBS was added in 2017 as a Table
Claim for the flu vaccine. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a).
34

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 35 of 42
The same is not true for the pneumococcal vaccine, however (which as noted above does
not also have a counterpart Table claim for GBS). I recently discussed at length the reasons why.
See generally Bielak, 2022 WL 18058244, at *33–37 (pneumococcal vaccine not shown to cause
GBS). In short, the flu and pneumococcal vaccines are wholly distinguishable in composition,
provoke the intended immune response in completely different ways, and evidence relevant to flu
vaccine causality is missing for the pneumococcal vaccine. Id. at *36. I also observed in Bielak
that there are only a limited number of decisions in which special masters have considered
causation in this context—and while some decisions have unquestionable gone the petitioner’s
way, their reasoning is unpersuasive, giving excessive weight to molecular mimicry’s explanatory
power based on a distinguishable context, or not fully grappling with Respondent’s counter-
arguments. See, e.g., Gross v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1075V, 2022 WL 9669651
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 22, 2022); Maloney, 2022 WL 1074087; Pierson v. Sec'y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 17-1136V, 2022 WL 322836 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 19, 2022); Koller v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-439V, 2021 WL 5027947 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 8, 2021). I
also observed that these favorable cases cited the same items of literature offered in Bielak (and
this case as well), but that they were far less supportive of causation than assumed. Bielak, 2022
WL 18058244, at *15–17, 32 (discussing Chang, Gilburd, Ho, Kanter, and Nakos).
Bielak no more controls the outcome of this case than determinations like Koller favorable
to the Petitioner do. But I reference it because the similarities in theory offered therein are too
reminiscent of what is proposed in this case to ignore. There is ample reason to doubt the
persuasiveness of the general theory that the pneumococcal vaccine “can cause” GBS, especially
where that theory over-relies on a “connect the dots” approach that tries to demonstrate a link
between indirectly-present components43 of the vaccine and myelin structures (in this case, lipids),
but without additional evidence making pathogenicity in the wake of vaccination more likely. All
vaccines do not cause GBS simply because one vaccine likely does—but decisions implicating the
pneumococcal vaccine as causal seem too eager to apply what is known about the flu vaccine as a
template to any covered vaccine.
My determination in Deshler, 2020 WL 4593162, also has some relevance to the current
case, although it is less on point. The Deshler petitioner relied on a theory that the conjugate
component of the Prevnar-13 vaccine itself had caused an aberrant, mimicry-driven autoimmune
process relating to the vaccine’s antigens. Deshler, 2020 WL 4593162, at *27. Petitioner’s expert
in Deshler opined, as here, that the subsequent B cell reaction (the primary goal of the vaccine)
was driven by the polysaccharide component of the vaccination, although (unlike this case) he
conceded that he could not demonstrate mimicry between the S. pneumoniae polysaccharides and
43 By indirect, I mean only that the vaccine is not manufactured or engineered to specifically include phospholipids or
phosphoglycerol—but that the polysaccharide antigens in the vaccine themselves happen to contain these sub-
structures.
35

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 36 of 42
self-structures. Id. Respondent’s expert argued in reaction that the polysaccharides contained in
the vaccine did not share structural homology with self-structures of the peripheral nervous system,
and thus could not contribute to the pathogenesis of GBS via a molecular mimicry-driven cross-
reaction to the vaccine’s antigens. Id. at *27. I concurred with Respondent, while also finding that
the petitioner relied too heavily on the temporal association between vaccination and onset as
evidence of causation (and that there was another potential explanation for the claimant’s GBS
that had not been rebutted). Id. at *22, 27.
II. Petitioner Has not Carried His Burden of Proof to Show That the
Pneumococcal Vaccine “Can Cause” GBS
Petitioner’s GBS diagnosis is largely uncontested,44 leaving me to determine whether the
three Althen prongs are met. This case turns wholly on the first prong45—for I find (consistent with
my analysis in Bielak (2022 WL 18058244, at *33–37)) that Petitioner has not preponderantly
demonstrated that the pneumococcal vaccine can cause GBS.
The pathologic mechanism Dr. Steinman embraces46—molecular mimicry—is well-
established in the Vaccine Program as providing a reliable scientific explanation for how GBS
may often occur after receipt of the flu vaccine specifically. See Chinea, 2019 WL 1873322, at
44 Dr. Vartanian raised some questions about aspects of the EMG testing that were inconsistent with a demyelinating
polyneuropathy, but he never clearly or centrally advocated that the diagnosis was incorrect—and his other comments
on the medical record seemed to relate more to potential alternative causes than to the diagnosis. Respondent also does
not contend in his brief that Mr. Trollinger’s illness is not properly understood to be GBS. In any event, my
determination that entitlement was not established primarily lies in my finding that the pneumococcal vaccine has not
been shown to be likely causal of GBS.
45 My determination on the first prong is dispositive (since claimants must satisfy all three prongs to prevail), and
therefore I do not include discussion of the other two prongs. I do, however, acknowledge treater support in Petitioner’s
medical records for a vaccine causal relationship. Ex. 4 at 36–37; Ex. 9 at 6. Petitioner can point to a number of
instances in the record where a treating physician offered the view that the pneumococcal vaccine had a connection to
his neurologic injury—as well as the admonition to avoid vaccination in the future. Ex 4. at 80 (July 27, 2015 visit);
Ex. 9 at 6 (August 31, 2015 visit); Ex. 11 at 15 (April 2016 visit). Such evidence supports the second Althen prong.
But I am not bound to accept a treater’s opinion. Snyder, 88 Fed. Cl. at 746 n.67. And it appears in several instances
that treaters deemed the temporal association significant in proposing a vaccine association. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 36–37,
80 (Dr. Smith’s impression that Petitioner’s GBS was “likely due to pneumonia shot that [Petitioner] got one week
before presentation” is juxtaposed with his note that Petitioner “apparently had a Pneumovax shot recently”). There
is also evidence suggesting that before the formal onset of Petitioner’s neurologic symptoms, he experienced some
form of gastrointestinal distress severe enough to send him to the ER (arguably allowing for the possibility that an
infection was causal). Ex. 3 at 2. But I cannot on this record find a likely alternative explanation.
Petitioner’s Althen prong three showing was limited to the argument that his onset/vaccination timeframe was
consistent with Schonberger—a study involving the flu vaccine (and in fact a version of that vaccine not generally
administered since the 1970s). Schonberger at 105. This was far weaker than his prong two evidence, although the
timing of his onset ten days after vaccination is not inconsistent with Dr. Steinman’s theory.
46 Although Program claimants are not required to propose a mechanism, they often attempt to do so—and thus invite
scrutiny into whether the proposed mechanism has preponderant support. Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1378–79 (citing
Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1325–26).
36

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 37 of 42
*29. But as I have now observed too many times in other cases, a claimant cannot simply invoke
the concept and deem the “can cause” prong satisfied. McKown v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 15-1451V, 2019 WL 4072113, at *50 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2019) (“merely chanting
the magic words ‘molecular mimicry’ in a Vaccine Act case does not render a causation theory
scientifically reliable, absent additional evidence specifically tying the mechanism to the injury
and/or vaccine in question”) (emphasis in original), mot. for review denied, 76 Fed. Cl. 452
(2007)). This is because, as Dr. Whitton noted, homologic similarity (whether due to sequential
chains of amino acids (relevant to proteins), structural similarities of molecules, or both) is
commonplace in nature, but without pathologic outcomes. Whitton Rep. at 36. This, plus the fact
that a number of distinguishable insults (viral vs. bacterial infections) can result in different forms
of GBS, means that Program claimants do not satisfy the first prong simply by offering molecular
mimicry to explain pathologic mechanism.
Rather, a petitioner’s expert(s) must offer evidence specific to the context of the case—the
injury as well as the vaccine in question. And even in the context of the flu vaccine, where
molecular mimicry is a more reliably offered mechanism, Program cases have often involved
successful demonstrations by petitioners that the wild flu viral components of the vaccine contain
amino acid sequences that share sequential and structural homology to self-structures
(gangliosides) that would be the putative target of autoimmune attack. See generally Pierson, 2022
WL 322836, at *24 (citing Chinea, 2019 WL 1873322, at *15). But a bare demonstration of a
cross-reactive potential would not be enough to prevail even in the case of a flu-GBS claim. Rather
(as discussed in Bielak) a number of factors other than amino acid homology have supported the
vaccine-injury association. Bielak, 2022 WL 18058244, at *33, 36. It is this kind of showing in
the totality that crosses the preponderant “line.”
Has Petitioner offered sufficient proof, through the efforts of Dr. Steinman? At the outset,
I note that there is no baseline association between the wild S. pneumoniae infection and GBS (as
compared to a wild flu infection), heightening the need for corroborative evidence. In addition, Dr.
Whitton noted that the medical community has not even entertained the concept at the heart of Dr.
Steinman’s theory: that a target antigen for GBS could be phospholipids, rather than gangliosides.
Whitton Rep. at 8-9, 30.47 Proving that a vaccine could cause an injury, and in a specific way, that
the existing scientific consensus does not support for the vaccine’s antigenic source, would be an
uphill battle.
This still left room for Dr. Steinman to propose a theory that could pass the preponderant
test, if supported by sufficient and reliable medical or scientific evidence. Any number of kinds of
evidence in combination could meet the standard. What Dr. Steinman has done, however, is simply
47 Indeed—if correct, Dr. Steinman has effectively identified a new/alternative pathogenesis for GBS not previously
recognized by the peripheral neuropathy experts who study GBS far more intently and consistently than Dr. Steinman.
See generally Hughes II and Kwan. The lack of widely-accepted support for this novel theory only gives credence to
the inference that Dr. Steinman’s theory has been crafted to meet the needs of the case.
37

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 38 of 42
couple his usual BLAST search molecular biology showing, in which he attempts to make
associations between molecular sub-components of a vaccine’s antigens and some self/host tissue
components found in the general vicinity of the injury (here, peripheral nerve myelin), with
conclusory reasoning that ultimately places undue weight on the temporal relationship between
the claimant’s vaccination and onset manifestation.
Dr. Whitton, however, persuasively and comprehensively rebutted his showing. First, Dr.
Whitton demonstrated that the first iteration of Dr. Steinman’s causation theory erroneously relied
on the presence of “phospholipids” in the pneumococcal vaccine for the mimicking cross-reaction
he posited. This could be ignored as a minor mistake of scientific imprecision, especially since
(based on Dr. Steinman’s third report) Dr. Whitton conceded that phosphoglycerol (or more
accurately glycerophosphate) was found in at least some of the vaccine’s 13 polysaccharide
antigens. But the outset error reasonably calls into question what followed, including Dr.
Steinman’s explanation about the evolution of his thinking on the topic—an evolution that relied
less on new discoveries or scientific findings, and more on the fact that unfortunate delay in the
case’s progress allowed him to sand off the rough edges of his earlier, inaccurate theory.
Second, Dr. Whitton made numerous insightful critiques of the specific components of the
core causation theory set forth in Dr. Steinman’s third report. That report, it should be noted, does
offer reliable support for the conclusion that phosphoglycerol is found in the pneumococcal
vaccine; that the immune system produces antibodies in reaction to the relevant antigens
containing the phosphoglycerol; and that individuals with neuropathies (although some suffer from
the distinguishable disease MS) have been shown in small sample studies to possess antibodies
specific to myelin-containing phospholipids. But this showing left out too much to find it was
enough to meet the Petitioner’s preponderance burden of proof. For, as Dr. Whitton demonstrated,
it is not likely that antibodies generated to the phosphoglycerol-specific vaccine antigens can in
turn react with host tissue phospholipids, or that GBS is primarily or initially mediated by such a
cross-reaction, with articles like Nakos and Gilburd admitting that the existence of antibodies
(which could be the product of an ongoing disease started by something distinguishable) does not
in turn imply pathogenic primacy. It may not even be the case, as Dr. Whitton maintained, that
phosphoglycerol is found in phospholipids in a chemical state recognizable by a pneumococcal
antigen-produced antibody. While both experts were well-qualified to offer the opinions they did,
I give more weight overall to Dr. Whitton when opining on the biochemistry and immunologic
topics relevant to the causation theory; his expert report covering them overall demonstrated far
more precision and care in terminology than Dr. Steinman’s efforts.
Dr. Whitton also showed that Dr. Steinman’s practice of employing BLAST searches may
to some degree make less than optimal use of the database (although I do not dispute the baseline
utility it provides him in establishing potential homologic sequences when comparing a variety of
compounds, protein or otherwise, common to vaccines and human tissue). But it is not even evident
38

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 39 of 42
that the considerable effort Dr. Steinman put into this aspect of his opinion (which took up pages
upon pages of his reports) had utility to his theory, given the holes in his reasoning on other,
equally-important issues. Rather, the science-heavy showing48 he made on this front did more to
obscure and confuse than to support the theory that the vaccine can cause GBS. I need not decide
if Dr. Steinman offered sufficient homology between phosphoglycerols in two or three of the
Prevnar vaccine’s 13 antigens and host tissue to conclude, based on the overall evidence, that
causation was not established.
Dr. Steinman’s reports also overstated points that were more prosaic in nature, attempting
to “flip” a fact about the expected vaccine response into evidence supporting his theory. For
example, he made emphatic reference to Bryson, as if it were tailor-made to support his causation
opinion. See Steinman Third Rep. at 13 (citing Bryson) (“23F is in Prevnar 13!!”). But the study
itself had no such focus; Bryson’s authors mainly appear to have selected a pneumococcal antibody
generated in response to a vaccine-containing strain because they were aware that a related gene
pair also played a role in causing production of a different antibody—thus allowing them to study
that issue, as opposed to GBS pathogenesis of the immune reaction to the pneumococcal vaccine.
Bryson thus provides only cursory, secondary support for Dr. Steinman’s contention that a vaccine
strain specifically-containing a phosphoglycerol group prompts an immune response—and
ultimately stands mostly for the conclusion that the pneumococcal vaccine reliably functions as
intended. Bryson’s authors were not looking to see if the antibody had a potential cross-reactive
response—a far more important aspect of Dr. Steinman’s opinion.
This latter point was an especially important omission in Dr. Steinman’s theory. The
evidence that antibodies produced in response to the pneumococcal vaccine can attack nerve
structures and instigate GBS in the process was mostly derived from the articles I discussed at
length but rejected in Bielak. See Bielak, 2022 WL 18058244, at *15–17, 32 (discussing Chang,
Gilburd, Ho, Kanter, and Nakos). Such items are either specific to MS or openly acknowledge that
they cannot shed light on whether antibodies oriented against myelin phospholipids initiate an
autoimmune attack or are created in the midst of an attack started by some other factor. Thus, it
has not been preponderantly shown these autoantibodies “cause” GBS—only that they are present
in GBS, or MS (a distinguishable condition even if it too involves demyelination). And Dr.
Whitton convincingly explained why it could not be assumed, and had not been shown, that an
antibody produced in response to one of the vaccine’s phosphoglycerol-containing
polysaccharides would be recognized by a myelin phospholipid structure.
48 The theory proposed in this case was in fact on the more science-heavy end of the spectrum, even for Program cases.
Its inordinate scientific complexity and repeated reference to biochemistry and microbiology topics was only
magnified in the back-and-forth between Drs. Whitton and Steinman in their final reports. (Indeed, these two reports
together constitute 75 pages of work).
39

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 40 of 42
The other two components of Petitioner’s causation theory were even less well
substantiated. The contentions about a cross reaction between the vaccine conjugate and contactin,
for example, relied on another painstaking effort to prove homology, but without hardly any
evidence that (a) vaccine recipients mount a response to the conjugate that would produce anti-
contactin antibodies, and (b) that contactin is a likely GBS pathogenic target. Dr. Whitton
persuasively rebutted these points. Whitton Rep. at 40–41. The arguments Dr. Steinman raised
about the role alum would play in the process of pathogenicity was particularly bare-bones, and
(as Dr. Whitton noted) was hard to distinguish from the routinely-rejected causation theory
“ASIA,” in which the alum-based adjuvant is deemed central to autoimmune disease.
Dr. Steinman unpersuasively defended his consistent reliance on molecular biology-heavy
showings in this report (as he does in nearly every Vaccine Act case) as justifying his lack of other
supportive evidence. See, e.g., Steinman Fourth Rep. at 15 (“[t]he best that can be done”). Indeed,
he seemed at times to employ the many molecule images strewn throughout his report as a smoke
screen, to hide his theory’s weakness in a haze of difficult science. His primary argument,
however—that he could not do better—amounts to a demand to lower the Althen standard,
primarily because proving causation is difficult. In fact, the absence of sufficient reliable science
in support of a theory is not an occasion to accept a non-preponderant showing. Caves v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 119, 143 (2011), aff’d, 463 F. App'x 932 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the
standard of proof does not operate as a sliding scale that varies depending on the quantity and
quality of the scientific evidence that is available”). And my determination that the overall amount
of evidence offered by Petitioner did not tip the scales, so to speak, in his favor, is not equivalent
to a demand for certainty on causation. Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 962
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting rejection of medical opinion on causation did not amount to requiring
certainty, but instead reflected special master’s inquiry into whether “some degree of acceptable
scientific support” existed to conclude preponderance standard had been met).
Worse is the fact that Dr. Steinman’s evolved theory seems to have been the product of the
case’s slow progress rather than any new scientific or medical understanding of GBS and its
association with the pneumococcal vaccine. What new scientific or medical studies on the subject
were published between 2017 (when Dr. Steinman’s first round of reports were filed) and his last
report, in May 2022?49 Why could the thinking on the theory in this case not have been performed
when an expert opinion was first sought? As my analysis makes clear, I have taken the revised
theory presented on its own terms, rejecting it for the reasons stated, rather than because it looks
like an unmerited attempt at a “do-over.” But I cannot help but conclude that Dr. Steinman refined
his theory solely because the case’s slow course permitted him the time to do so, rather than
because compelling independent reasons existed.
49 Only two items filed after the third report were published in 2021-2022 (with Dr. Steinman as a coauthor on one).
See Robinson; Wekerle.
40

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 41 of 42
In the end, Dr. Steinman’s theory had a one-size-fits-all quality, in which he strained to
shoehorn the science behind the flu-GBS association into the context of the pneumococcal vaccine.
If this were sufficient to establish that this particular vaccine “can cause” GBS, it is hard to imagine
the theory not also applying to each and every one of the sixteen Program-covered
vaccines/vaccine antigenic components. In such a world, all vaccines “can cause” GBS, simply
because of the intersection between the immune stimulation vaccines cause and autoimmune
diseases—and causation claims become indistinguishable from Table claims (since the very
question of causation is no longer subject to weighing of evidence but a fact issue easily satisfied
by this kind of expert opinion).
III. This Case Was Appropriately Decided on the Papers
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, and although the parties have
not contested my choice of adjudicatory method, I shall explain why a hearing was not required.
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 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.
The present claim could be, and was, fairly resolved without the need for live testimony
from the experts. Respondent’s questions regarding Mr. Trollinger’s diagnosis were not followed
through, making this case primarily a dispute regarding causation. That issue was something that
could be decided by careful consideration of the expert reports and associated literature.
Moreover, questions about the pneumococcal vaccine-GBS association raised issues I have
addressed recently, relying on the same arguments and items of literature. And despite how
complex the science on the issue became, the “topline” deficiencies in the theory were not only
quite evident from the reports but were dispositive no matter how the more esoteric disputes
between the experts were resolved. Otherwise, evidence that a vaccine “did cause” the alleged
injury, or did not, could be adduced from the record, without the need for witness assertions.
Overall, careful review of briefs, expert reports, articles/literature, and the record were
sufficient to reach a just and defensible conclusion. This case is nearly seven years old, and thus
there was value to selecting the most expeditious form of resolution for such a claim.
41

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 82 Filed 03/15/23 Page 42 of 42
CONCLUSION
Claimants must carry their burden of proof—here, by preponderantly establishing, via an
offering of sufficient evidence specific to the pneumococcal vaccine in question, how it could
cause GBS. This has not been accomplished in this case. Accordingly, I deny entitlement.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the
Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this Decision.50
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
50 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
42

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00473-3
Date issued/filed: 2023-08-15
Pages: 28
Docket text: JUDGE VACCINE REPORTED OPINION (reissued for publication of 88 JUDGE VACCINE ORDER/OPINION DENYING 85 Petitioner's Motion for Review of 81 Decision of Special Master). Signed by Judge Eleni M. Roumel. (lew) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 28
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
ARTHUR L. TROLLINGER,
Petitioner,
No. 16-vv-473
v.
Filed: July 31, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, Publication: August 15, 20231
Respondent.
L. Cooper Harrell, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC for Petitioner.
Mallori B. Openchowski, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts
Branch, Washington, D.C. for Respondent. With her on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; C. Salvatore D’Alessio, Director, United States
Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch; Heather L. Pearlman, Deputy Director,
United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch; Traci R. Patton, Assistant
Director, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before this Court is Petitioner Arthur L. Trollinger’s Motion for Review of the
Chief Special Master’s Decision (Motion) dismissing Mr. Trollinger’s Petition for Vaccine
Compensation (Petition) under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine
Program). Motion for Review of the Chief Special Master’s Decision (ECF No. 85) (Mot.);
Petition for Vaccine Compensation (ECF No. 1) (Pet.); see Trollinger v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 16-473V, 2023 WL 2521912 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 17, 2023) (ECF No. 81).
Petitioner alleges the Chief Special Master erred by (i) imposing a heightened burden of proof with
respect to Althen prong one, (ii) failing to follow the law in his evaluation of Petitioner’s expert,
1 On July 31, 2023, the Court filed a sealed version of this Memorandum and Order. See ECF No.
88. As the parties do not propose any redactions, the Court is publicly reissuing its Memorandum
and Order. The sealed and public versions of this Memorandum and Order are identical, except
for the publication date and this footnote.

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 28
and (iii) failing to fairly consider Petitioner’s molecular mimicry theory. Mot. at 7–82; see Althen
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Respondent urges this Court to affirm the Chief Special Master’s decision, arguing
Petitioner has not established reversible error and “has not shown the denial of entitlement was
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.” Response to Motion
for Review (ECF No. 87) (Resp.) at 7.
For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 85) is DENIED and the Chief
Special Master’s Decision is SUSTAINED.
BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2016, Arthur L. Trollinger filed a petition for compensation under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012),
for an off-Table injury. Pet. at 1; Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *1. Specifically, Petitioner
alleged the Prevnar-13 pneumococcal vaccine (PCV-13) he received on July 17, 2015, caused him
to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Id.; Pet. ⁋⁋ 2, 14. To support his position, Petitioner
provided various medical records3 and expert reports.4 Respondent filed competing expert reports5
2 Citations throughout this Memorandum and Order reference the ECF-assigned page numbers,
which do not always correspond to the pagination within the relevant document.
3 Petitioner filed his medical records as Petition Exhibits 1–10 via CD. See docket text
accompanying Pet. He later filed additional medical records marked as Exhibits 11–12 (ECF No.
9) and Exhibit 13 (ECF No. 11). Petitioner filed a Statement of Completion on June 28, 2016,
confirming the submission of all medical records related to this litigation. ECF No. 13.
4 Petitioner filed four expert reports throughout this litigation, all from Dr. Lawrence Steinman
(ECF Nos. 26-1, 35-1, 67-1, 79-1).
5 Respondent filed reports by two experts: Dr. Timothy Vartanian (ECF Nos. 33-1, 38-1) and Dr.
J. Lindsay Whitton (ECF No. 77-1).
2

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 28
in support of its opposition and contention that Petitioner’s GBS was caused by factors other than
the vaccine.
I. Factual Background
On July 17, 2015, Petitioner Arthur L. Trollinger received a PCV-13 vaccine during his
annual wellness exam. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *1; Mot. ⁋ 2; Pet. Ex. 1, at 6–7. Eight
days later, Petitioner complained of abdominal pains and, concerned he was having a heart
attack, contacted emergency medical services (EMS). Pet. ⁋ 3; Pet. Ex. 3. EMS arrived over
thirty minutes later and offered to take Petitioner to the nearest emergency room. Pet. ⁋ 3, at 2;
Pet. Ex. 3, at 2. After declining EMS’s offer, Petitioner went to the emergency room at the
Alamance Regional Medical Center in Burlington, North Carolina (Alamance ER). Trollinger,
2023 WL 2521912, at *1; Pet. ⁋ 4; Pet. Ex. 3, at 2. There, Petitioner underwent radiological and
lab testing, but the treating physician failed to pinpoint a clear cause of the chest pain, ultimately
diagnosing Petitioner with gastric reflux. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *1; Pet. ⁋ 4; Pet. Ex.
4, at 441–44, 450–51, 453–84.
Two days later, on July 27, 2015, Petitioner awoke and discovered he had lost feeling in
his hands. Pet. ⁋ 5. Later that same day, he felt a pins-and-needles sensation and weakness in his
legs. Id. His wife drove him to a local walk-in clinic, where the physician immediately sent him
to the Alamance ER after he developed numbness in his hands and feet, and ptosis (drooping of
the upper eyelid) of the right eye. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *1; Pet. ⁋ 5; Pet. Ex. 4, at 40–
42, 72–73. The ER physician, Dr. Malinda, conducted a brain scan and consulted with Dr.
Matthew Smith, a neurologist, before admitting Petitioner to the hospital for possible GBS.6
6 While Dr. Vartanian raised concerns about portions of the testing Petitioner had undergone,
Respondent does not directly dispute Petitioner’s GBS diagnosis, arguing a lack of causation rather
than an alternative diagnosis. See generally Pet.; Resp.
3

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 4 of 28
Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *1; Pet. ⁋ 6; Pet. Ex. 4, at 42, 67–74, 157, 319. Petitioner
remained hospitalized until August 3, 2015, at which point he was transferred to a long-term care
facility until August 10, 2015 for rehabilitation, speech, physical, and occupational therapy.
Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2; Pet. ⁋ 8; Pet. Ex. 5, at 10–24. During that time, Petitioner
experienced back pain, difficulty swallowing, fatigue, blurred vision, and weakness in his lower
extremities, necessitating some assistance with mobility. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2;
Pet. Ex. 5, at 10–15. From August 11 until August 27, 2015, Petitioner received at-home assistance
and was referred for ongoing physical therapy, which he received from October 6, 2015 through
the end of 2015. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2; Pet. ⁋ 9; Pet. Ex. 6, at 27–29, 35–49, 50–
54; Pet. Ex. 7, at 23–50, 60–97, 105–27.
On August 19, 2015, Petitioner followed-up on his GBS diagnosis with his primary care
physician, complaining of difficulty swallowing, chest pains, tachycardia, shortness of breath,
back pain, and muscle spasms. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2; Pet. Ex. 1, at 4–5. On August
31, 2015, Petitioner met with cardiologist Dr. Dwayne Callwood, who recorded that Petitioner had
“developed [GBS] after a pneumonia shot.” Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2; Pet. ⁋ 11; Pet.
Ex. 9, at 6–13. Dr. Callwood also recorded that Petitioner had suffered from angina symptoms for
the previous three to four months, shortness of breath, and tachycardia, and he noted these
symptoms were “related to [Petitioner’s] [GBS].” Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2; Pet. ⁋ 11;
Pet. Ex. 9, at 6.
Petitioner followed up with a neurologist, Dr. Hemang Shah, on September 21, 2015, who
documented that Petitioner had received the PCV-13 vaccine in July 2015; however, Dr. Shah did
not link the vaccination to Petitioner’s symptoms, which were by then improving. Trollinger,
2023 WL 2521912, at *2; Pet. Ex. 10, at 9–15; id. at 10 (listing PCV-13 as an allergic agent). Dr.
4

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 5 of 28
Shah ultimately diagnosed Petitioner with GBS, prescribed Gabapentin, an anticonvulsant and
nerve pain medication, and advised Petitioner to avoid driving. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at
*2; Pet. Ex. 10, at 15.
When Petitioner underwent further testing on October 2, 2015, he displayed bilateral
weakness and numbness in his hands, feet, and legs. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2; Pet.
⁋ 12; Pet. Ex. 10, at 2–3. Dr. Shah listed that Petitioner’s “[p]ast medical history [wa]s significant
for pneumonia vaccine prior to gradual onset of symptoms,” and provided the impression that
Petitioner suffered from “generalized polyneuropathy,” with sensory deficits predominant, but “no
evidence of conduction block.” Pet. Ex. 10, at 2–3 (suggesting that Petitioner’s normal median
motor response could represent “more proximal lesion”); Pet. ⁋ 12; Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912,
at *2.
By January 20, 2016, Petitioner’s physical condition had improved, but he still required
the assistance of a cane to walk. Id.; Pet. Ex. 13, at 5. In February 2016, Petitioner’s primary care
physician referred him to a neurologist. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2; Pet. Ex. 13, at 7.
Petitioner also had an additional follow-up appointment with his cardiologist, who stated
Petitioner’s GBS was “possibly related to the pneumonia vaccine.” Pet. Ex. 11, at 16; Trollinger,
2023 WL 2521912, at *2. On May 31, 2016, Petitioner again visited his primary care physician,
who noted Petitioner’s GBS symptoms were improving, and that Petitioner was “aware to never
get another vaccine.” Pet. Ex. 13, at 4–5; Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *2.
At the time Petitioner brought suit against Respondent, Petitioner continued to suffer from
numbness and tingling in his hands, wrists, feet, and calves, and experienced tightening in his
torso. Pet. ⁋ 13.
5

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 6 of 28
II. Expert Opinions
In addition to the referenced medical records, the Chief Special Master reviewed seven
expert reports filed by three different experts: four reports filed by Petitioner’s expert and three
reports filed by Respondent’s two experts. See generally Pet. Ex. 14 (ECF No. 26-1) (Dr.
Steinman’s First Rep.); Respondent’s Ex. A (ECF No. 33-1) (Dr. Vartanian’s First Rep.); Pet. Ex.
31 (ECF No. 35-1) (Dr. Steinman’s Second Rep.); Respondent’s Ex. L (ECF No. 38-1) (Dr.
Vartanian’s Second Rep.); Pet. Ex. 40 (ECF No. 67-1) (Dr. Steinman’s Third Rep.); Respondent’s
Ex. M (ECF No. 77-1) (Dr. Whitton’s Rep.); Pet. Ex. 62 (ECF No. 79-1) (Dr. Steinman’s Fourth
Rep.).
A. Petitioner’s Expert Reports
Petitioner retained Dr. Lawrence Steinman, who serves as the George A. Zimmerman
Professor of Pediatrics, Neurology, and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University. Dr.
Steinman’s First Rep. at 1; Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *3. Dr. Steinman filed four reports
in this case. The first report, filed on March 7, 2021, concluded Petitioner had developed GBS
through a cross-reactive immune response, molecular mimicry, to the phospholipid molecular
structures in the PCV-13 vaccine’s antigens. Dr. Steinman’s First Rep. at 6–9. Dr. Steinman
stated that certain phospholipids (phosphatidyl serine and phosphatidyl choline) are present in the
vaccine as well and are expressed in association with its polysaccharide antigens. Id. One example
is phospholipid phosphorylcholine, which is expressed in the 19A component of the vaccine and
is key in the pathophysiology of the pneumonia infection. Id. at 8–9. Therefore, in Dr. Steinman’s
estimation, it was logical that a vaccine intended to immunize against the pneumococcus strain
might also bring about “an immune response to lipids involved in neuroinflammation.” Id. at 9.
Dr. Steinman filed his second expert report on August 7, 2017, largely addressing criticisms that
6

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 7 of 28
Respondent’s expert, Dr. Timothy Vartanian, had leveled at Dr. Steinman’s first report. See
generally Dr. Steinman’s Second Rep.
Almost four years later, the Chief Special Master granted Petitioner’s request to update Dr.
Steinman’s expert opinion. Minute Order, dated July 15, 2021. Petitioner’s request followed a
conversation between Petitioner’s counsel and Dr. Steinman, during which the expert “indicated
that the current analysis of the molecular mimicry in Prevnar 13 is far more extensive than in his
original expert report filed in this case in 2017.” July 14, 2021 Status Report (ECF No. 66) at 1.
Dr. Steinman’s third report was subsequently filed on August 6, 2021. Dr. Steinman’s Third Rep.
This new report, however, contained no new evidence; instead, Dr. Steinman’s third report merely
reconsidered existing evidence concerning the makeup and contents of the PCV-13 vaccine. See
id. After making an inquiry to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and
consulting the vaccine’s package insert and patent, Dr. Steinman concluded the molecule at issue
in the vaccine was phosphoglycerol, not phospholipids, as Dr. Steinman had previously claimed.
Id. at 2–15. The information Dr. Steinman had obtained from the CDC was a referral to the vaccine
packet and patent, both of which were readily available before Dr. Steinman had filed his first two
reports. Dr. Steinman’s Third Rep. at 2–6.
With the identification of a new molecule, Dr. Steinman subsequently considered the
potential for molecular mimics. Id. at 7–15. He focused on phosphoglycerol as a component of
some of the vaccine’s polysaccharides in the 13 pneumococcal strains included in the vaccine. Id.
at 6–14. He theorized that an antibody created in reaction to the polysaccharide in the 23F strain
could bind to the phosphate group in the phosphoglycerol in the myelin sheath, leading to GBS.
Id. at 14. In the alternative, he proposed a reaction to a protein conjugate that aids the vaccine’s
immunogenicity or to the adjuvant used, which stimulates systemic immunity. Id. at 15–22.
7

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 8 of 28
Petitioner filed Dr. Steinman’s fourth report on May 7, 2022. Dr. Steinman’s Fourth Rep.
at 1. In it, Dr. Steinman introduced several new articles to support his molecular mimicry theory,
though they focused on molecular mimics for multiple sclerosis and Epstein-Barr virus rather than
GBS. Id. at 14–16. Dr. Steinman also defended his research methods in response to criticism from
Respondent’s expert, Dr. Whitton, and defended the overall value of his evidence. Id. at 16–27.
B. Respondent’s Expert Reports
Respondent retained two experts who submitted a total of three reports: Dr. Timothy
Vartanian, an attending neurologist at New York Presbyterian Hospital and a professor at Weill
Cornell Medicine; and Dr. J. Lindsay Whitton, a researcher and professor of immunology and
microbial science at Scripps Research Institute, where he focuses on viral pathogenesis, innate and
adaptive immune responses, and molecular mimicry. Dr. Vartanian’s First Rep. at 1; Respondent’s
Ex. B. (ECF No. 30-2); Dr. Whitton’s Rep. at 1–3; Respondent’s Ex. N (ECF No. 77-2).
Petitioner filed expert reports from Dr. Vartanian on May 18, 2017, and on October 27,
2017. Dr. Vartanian’s First Rep.; Dr. Vartanian’s Second Rep. In these reports, Dr. Vartanian
questioned the trustworthiness of Petitioner’s GBS diagnosis and highlighted discrepancies
between Petitioner’s test results and what is expected for persons with demyelinating neuropathy.
Dr. Vartanian’s First Rep. at 7–10; Dr. Vartanian’s Second Rep. at 2–3. He suggested alternative
explanations for Petitioner’s illness, such as hyponatremia, and stated that one of the drugs taken
by Petitioner to treat acid reflux is known to have a negative impact on neuropathies and to
exacerbate symptoms for those with hyponatremia. Dr. Vartanian’s First Rep. at 7. Dr. Vartanian
further contended that Dr. Steinman’s molecular mimicry theory was scientifically insufficient.
Id. at 10–11. Dr. Vartanian’s second report served primarily as a response to contentions in Dr.
8

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 9 of 28
Steinman’s second report, and claimed that Dr. Steinman’s theory lacked strong, independent
evidence. Dr. Vartanian’s Second Rep. at 2–3.
Petitioner filed an expert report from Dr. Whitton on April 29, 2022. Dr. Whitton’s Rep.
Dr. Whitton’s report focused on the causation theories presented by Dr. Steinman, arguing each
theory suffered from fatal scientific flaws. Id.
III. Special Master’s Decision
On January 14, 2022, Petitioner moved for a ruling on the record, asserting his causation-
in-fact burden was met. Motion for Ruling on the Record (ECF No. 72). Petitioner relied primarily
on Dr. Steinman’s causation theory as presented in his expert reports to satisfy the required
showing of a reliable, plausible theory of causation. Id. at 17 (“Dr. Steinman[] has provided a
biologically plausible medical theory that causally connects the Prevnar 13 vaccine with
Petitioner’s resulting GBS – namely molecular mimicry.”). Respondent filed its response to
Petitioner’s motion on April 29, 2022, arguing Petitioner had failed to establish a reliable medical
theory connecting the PCV-13 vaccine and Petitioner’s GBS by a preponderance of the evidence.
Response to Motion for Ruling on the Record (ECF No. 76) at 1–2.
On February 17, 2023, the Chief Special Master denied Petitioner’s motion and entitlement
on the basis that the Petitioner “ha[d] not preponderantly established that the pneumococcal
vaccine can cause GBS, or did so to [Petitioner].” Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *1. In the
Decision, the Chief Special Master analyzed Petitioner’s claim using the three-prong causation test
for off-Table vaccine injury cases provided in Althen v. Secretary of Health & Human Services,
which requires a petitioner demonstrate “by preponderant evidence that the vaccination brought
about [his] injury.” 418 F.3d at 1278. To that end, the Althen test’s first prong requires Petitioner
“provid[e] . . . a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury.” Id. Althen
9

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 10 of 28
prongs two and three require, respectively, showings of “a logical sequence of cause and effect
showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury” and “a showing of a proximate temporal
relationship between vaccination and injury.” Id.
In applying the Althen three-prong test, the Chief Special Master determined Petitioner’s
proffered causation theory—as evinced by Dr. Steinman—was insufficiently plausible to satisfy
Althen prong one by preponderant evidence. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *27–*30.
Accordingly, the Chief Special Master ruled Petitioner failed to satisfy Althen prong one because
Petitioner could not demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the pneumococcal vaccine
can cause GBS. Id.
The Chief Special Master’s analysis of the seven expert reports acknowledged that the
theory of molecular mimicry is well-accepted in the Vaccine Program as “a reliable scientific
explanation for how GBS may often occur after receipt of the flu vaccine specifically.” Id. at *27
(emphasis in original). However, the Chief Special Master noted several crucial differences
between the flu vaccine and the PCV-13 vaccine that suggest the former’s acknowledged
relationship to GBS should not be taken as suggestive of the latter’s, explaining that “the flu and
pneumococcal vaccines are wholly distinguishable in composition, provoke the intended immune
response in completely different ways, and evidence relevant to flu vaccine causality is missing
for the pneumococcal vaccine.” Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *26. As additional support for
his rejection of Petitioner’s causation theory, the Chief Special Master also highlighted Dr.
Steinman’s admittedly incorrect reference to “phospholipids” in his first two expert reports,
pointed to perceived weaknesses in Dr. Steinman’s research methods and citations, and took
account of the arguments and evidence presented in both Dr. Vartanian’s and Dr. Whitton’s expert
reports. Id. at *27–*30.
10

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 11 of 28
The Chief Special Master ultimately found that the arguments advanced by Dr. Steinman
in favor of Petitioner’s causation theory “had a one-size-fits-all quality” that “strained to shoehorn
the science behind the flu-GBS association into the context of the pneumococcal vaccine,”
resulting in errors and leaps of logic that were present even in Dr. Steinman’s final expert report.
Id. at *30. Such perceived deficiencies led the Chief Special Master to hold that Petitioner did not
provide a sufficiently persuasive medical theory connecting the PCV-13 vaccine with Petitioner’s
GBS and thus did not satisfy the first Althen prong by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at *30–
*31 (“Claimants must carry their burden of proof—here, by preponderantly establishing, via an
offering of sufficient evidence specific to the pneumococcal vaccine in question, how it could
cause GBS. This has not been accomplished in this case.”).
As a petitioner must satisfy all three Althen prongs to demonstrate causation, the Chief
Special Master found his determination regarding Althen prong one was dispositive and
accordingly denied entitlement to Petitioner. Id.; Althen, 418 F.3d at 1274 (requiring a petitioner
satisfy all three prongs to demonstrate causation-in-fact).
IV. Petitioner’s Motion for Review
On March 17, 2023, Petitioner filed the present Motion for Review (ECF No. 85), urging
this Court “to set aside the Decision and enter a ruling in favor of entitlement, or, in the alternative,
remand this matter for further consideration as to Althen prongs two and three.” Mot. at 25.
Respondent filed its Response to Motion for Review (ECF No. 87) on April 17, 2023.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act) created the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to compensate people presumed or proven to be injured by
certain vaccines. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. Congress established the Vaccine Act after lawsuits
11

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 12 of 28
against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and
reduce vaccination rates. See Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 227–28 (2011). The
Vaccine Program was designed to “lessen the number of lawsuits against manufacturers and
provide[] relative certainty and generosity of compensation awards in order to satisfy petitioners
in a fair, expeditious, and generous manner.” Cloer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 654 F.3d
1322, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in
original); see also K.G. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 951 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(citing Cloer, 654 F.3d at 1325) (“The Vaccine Act is a pro-claimant regime meant to allow injured
individuals a fair and fast path to compensation . . . .”).
Petitions alleging injuries caused by a vaccine must be filed in the United States Court of
Federal Claims, where a Special Master initially reviews and issues a decision on the petition.
Bruesewitz, 562 U.S. at 228 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(a)(1), 300aa-12(d)(3)). Under the
Vaccine Act, the United States Court of Federal Claims reviews the Special Master’s decision
upon the filing of a Motion for Review of Decision of the Special Master. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(e). Upon such a review, the Court may:
(A) uphold the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the special master and
sustain the special master’s decision,
(B) set aside any findings of fact or conclusion of law of the special master found
to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law and issue its own findings of fact and conclusions of law,
or
(C) remand the petition to the special master for further action in accordance with
the court's direction.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2); accord United States Court of Federal Claims Vaccine Rule 27(c).
The standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(B), “vary in application as well as degree of
deference,” as each “standard applies to a different aspect of the judgment.” Munn v. Sec'y of
12

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 13 of 28
Health & Hum. Servs., 970 F.2d 863, 870 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Thus, the [United States Court
of Federal Claims] judge reviews the special master's decision essentially for legal error or factual
arbitrariness.” Bradley v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“[S]pecial masters have broad discretion to weigh evidence and make factual
determinations.” Dougherty v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 Fed. Cl. 223, 229 (2018). A
special master’s factual findings are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard of
review. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. The scope of this review is limited and highly deferential.
Lampe v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 219 F.3d 1357, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Factual findings
of a special master must reflect a consideration of the relevant evidence of record, not be wholly
implausible, and articulate a rational basis for the conclusion reached. See, e.g., Cedillo v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 617 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Hines ex. rel. Sevier v. Sec’y of
Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 940 F.2d 1518, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1991). When reviewing the special
master’s factual findings, this Court does “not reweigh the factual evidence, assess whether the
special master correctly evaluated the evidence, or examine the probative value of the evidence or
the credibility of the witnesses—these are all matters within the purview of the fact finder.” Porter
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 663 F.3d 1242, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Nor does this Court
“second guess the Special Master[’]s fact-intensive conclusions[,] particularly in cases in which
the medical evidence of causation is in dispute.” Cedillo, 617 F.3d at 1338 (alteration in original)
(quotations omitted) (quoting Hodges v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir.
1993)).
Nonetheless, a deferential standard of review “is not a rubber stamp.” Porter, 663 F.3d at
1256 (O’Malley, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). A special master must “consider[ ]
the relevant evidence of record, draw[] plausible inferences and articulate[] a rational basis for
13

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 14 of 28
[his] decision.” Hines, 940 F.2d at 1528; see 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(b)(1). The special master’s
findings of fact also must be “supported by substantial evidence.” Doe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 601 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Whitecotton by Whitecotton v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 81 F.3d 1099, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 1996), on remand from Shalala v. Whitecotton, 514
U.S. 268 (1995)). “[A] finder of fact generally is not required to itemize every piece of evidence
on an issue and adopt or reject it.” Shapiro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532,
540 (2011) (citations omitted). However, the special master cannot dismiss so much evidence that
it appears the special master “simply failed to consider genuinely the evidentiary record.”
Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 97 Fed. Cl. 650, 668 (2011).
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, this Court acknowledges and greatly empathizes with Petitioner and
his struggles with the serious and painful symptoms he has endured. However, after review of the
record and applicable law, this Court must deny Petitioner’s Motion as a matter of law. Petitioner
may disagree with the Chief Special Master’s conclusions and believe other special masters would
have decided the issue differently. However, the Chief Special Master’s factual findings and legal
analyses are in accordance with binding precedent and do not reflect arbitrary or capricious
reasoning such that reversal and remand by this Court is warranted.
Under the Vaccine Act, Petitioner may demonstrate eligibility for an award in two ways.
See Munn, 970 F.2d at 865. Petitioner may either (1) show he suffered an injury listed on the
Vaccine Injury Table within the requisite time period, in which case causation is presumed (Table
injury), or, for injuries not listed on the Vaccine Table, (2) Petitioner may demonstrate his
condition was caused-in-fact by a given vaccine (off-Table injury). Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health
14

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 15 of 28
& Hum. Serv., 440 F.3d 1317, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Munn, 970 F.2d at 865; 42 U.S.C.
§§ 300aa-13(a)(1), 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii)(I)). As Petitioner alleges an off-Table injury here, he
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his vaccine was “not only a but-for cause of
the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Shyface v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Knudsen v. Sec'y of Dep’t of Health & Hum.
Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 549 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In showing “that the vaccination brought about [his]
injury,” Petitioner must satisfy the three Althen prongs, which require Petitioner to show 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.
Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; see also Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 941 F.3d 1351,
1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Petitioner advances three arguments against the Chief Special Master’s decision and his
analysis related to Althen prong one: (1) the Decision “imposes a heightened burden of proof with
respect to the first Althen prong, which is contrary to established Federal Circuit law”; (2) the
Decision “fails to follow federal law in evaluating Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lawrence Steinman,
which is legal error”; and (3) the Decision “demonstrates a predisposition against Petitioner’s
molecular mimicry theory, therefore failing to give it fair consideration, which is legal error and
. . . arbitrary and capricious.” Mot. at 8. The parties agree the relevant facts are not in dispute.
See id. at 8–9; Resp. at 7 (characterizing the relevant facts as being “not in dispute”).
15

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 16 of 28
I. Althen Prong One
A. The Chief Special Master Correctly Required Petitioner Satisfy the First Althen
Prong by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
The first Althen prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that the vaccine at issue is
capable of causing the alleged injury. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; Pafford v. Sec'y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355–56 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Greene v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 146
Fed. Cl. 655, 663 (2020). To make this showing, “a petitioner must provide a reputable medical
or scientific explanation that pertains specifically to the petitioner’s case, although the explanation
need only be ‘legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.’” Broekelschen v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 618 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Knudsen, 35 F.3d at 548–
49).
Petitioner first argues that the Chief Special Master impermissibly raised the burden of
proof for satisfying Althen prong one by requiring Petitioner to present a medical theory that
satisfies the prong by a preponderance of the evidence. Mot. at 12–13; see Trollinger, 2023 WL
2521912, at *27 (“This case turns wholly on the first prong—for I find . . . that Petitioner has not
preponderantly demonstrated that the pneumococcal vaccine can cause GBS.”) (citation omitted).
Petitioner contends such an approach is incorrect because, in his view, a proffered medical or
scientific explanation need only illustrate it is biologically plausible that the injury was caused by
a given vaccine in order to satisfy the first Althen prong. Id. at 12–16 (“The Federal Circuit has
repeatedly held that biological plausibility (not a preponderance of the evidence) is the appropriate
standard for evaluating Althen prong one.”). Petitioner maintains the preponderance of the
evidence standard is applicable only to an analysis of the Althen prongs as a whole, “across the
entirety of [a] claim,” rather than to each prong individually. Id. at 13 (“Petitioner does not dispute
that he must demonstrate entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence. That burden, however,
16

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 17 of 28
is overarching and applies across the entirety of his claim. It should not be applied to the individual
Althen prongs . . . .”) (emphasis in original).
Petitioner is mistaken as to the applicable burden of proof for satisfying the first Althen
prong, as the Federal Circuit has definitively addressed this topic: “To demonstrate causation, the
petitioner’s ‘burden is to show by preponderant evidence’ each of the requirements set forth in
Althen . . . .” Oliver v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 900 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(emphasis added) (quoting Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278); Pafford, 451 F.3d at 1356. Furthermore, the
Federal Circuit has made clear that “proof of a ‘plausible’ or ‘possible’ causal link between the
vaccine and the injury . . . is not the statutory standard” required by the Vaccine Act. Moberly ex
rel. Moberly v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Boatmon,
941 F.3d at 1360 (citing Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322) (“We have consistently . . . reiterated that a
‘plausible’ or ‘possible’ causal theory does not satisfy the standard.”); Broekelschen, 618 F.3d at
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he remaining question is whether [petitioner] provided proof by a
preponderance of the evidence of a medical theory . . . .”); LaLonde v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 746 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322) (“[W]e have made
clear that simply identifying a ‘plausible’ theory of causation is insufficient for a petitioner to meet
her burden.”). Even apart from the Federal Circuit’s direction, logic suggests meeting the burden
overall by the standard that Plaintiff proposes would require meeting it for each of the individual
prongs. Demonstrating by preponderant evidence “a logical sequence of cause and effect” and a
“proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury” (Althen prongs two and three)
but applying a causation theory (Althen prong one) that is not plausible by preponderant evidence
would not meet the overall burden of proof requirements, even “across the entirety of [a] claim.”
Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; Mot. at 13.
17

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 18 of 28
Petitioner cites several Federal Circuit opinions to support his contention that a lower,
“biologically plausible” burden of proof is required under the first Althen factor, and more
specifically that the burden may purportedly be satisfied by presentation of a medical theory of
causation that is considered biologically plausible to any extent. Mot. at 11, 13, 14–16.
Petitioner’s reliance on these cases is misguided and the cases are inapposite. For example, in
Andreu v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Circuit indeed
stated a petitioner had satisfied the first Althen prong by presenting a “‘biologically plausible’
theory explaining how toxins in the . . . vaccine could cause seizures,” yet the Circuit also made
clear the petitioner was required to satisfy that prong by preponderant evidence. 569 F.3d 1367,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009); id. at 1379 (“Althen makes clear that a claimant’s theory of causation must
be supported by a ‘reputable medical or scientific explanation.’ . . . Medical literature and
epidemiological evidence [presented in support of the theory] must be viewed . . . from the vantage
point of the Vaccine Act’s preponderant evidence standard.”). The best reading of Andreu—
consistent both internally and with Federal Circuit precedent—is thus that the first Althen prong is
satisfied by a theory demonstrated to be “biologically plausible” by preponderant evidence, not by
a lower burden of proof. See id.
Petitioner’s citations to Kottenstette v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 861 F.
App’x 433 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and Sharpe v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 964 F.3d 1072
(Fed. Cir. 2020), are similarly unpersuasive. In Kottenstette, the Federal Circuit confirmed that
demonstrating causation under Althen does not require “‘identification and proof of specific
biological mechanisms’” but “‘must be supported by a sound and reliable medical or scientific
explanation.’” 861 F. App’x at 440–41 (quoting Knudsen, 35 F.3d at 549, and Simanski v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 671 F.3d 1368, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). In Sharpe, the Federal Circuit
18

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 19 of 28
held a special master had erred in rejecting a petitioner’s medical theory “due to an absence of
medical literature,” quoting Andreu for the proposition that “[r]equiring epidemiologic studies . . .
or general acceptance in the scientific or medical communities . . . impermissibly raises a
claimant’s burden under the Vaccine Act.” 964 F.3d at 1085 (quoting Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1378).
However, the holding in Sharpe did not suggest anything less than preponderant evidence would
meet a petitioner’s causation burden. Indeed, contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, both opinions
expressly confirm preponderance of the evidence is the proper burden of proof under the Vaccine
Act. Kottenstette, 861 F. App’x at 437 (“Althen lists three prongs which petitioners must prove by
preponderant evidence.”); Sharpe, 964 F.3d at 1078 (stating that for off-Table claims, “the
petitioner must prove that the vaccine in fact caused her injuries by a preponderance of the
evidence. Notably, the preponderance of the evidence standard for off-table claims does not
require a petitioner to prove causation with scientific certainty.”).
While Kottenstette, Andreu, and Sharpe do not provide a lower burden of proof for
satisfying Althen prong one, Petitioner correctly relies on them to state that the prong does not
require medical certainty or a specific presentation of scientific or medical literature to meet the
preponderant evidence burden. See Mot. 14–16. However, as Respondent accurately emphasizes,
such a rule does not absolve Petitioner from his burden to present a “persuasive” theory supported
by “reputable” scientific or medical evidence. Resp. at 10; Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322 (“[A]
petitioner must provide a reputable medical or scientific explanation that pertains specifically to
the petitioner’s case . . . .” ). Thus, Althen requires a petitioner satisfy prong one by preponderant
medical or scientific evidence, but a special master cannot require presentation of medical or
scientific literature to satisfy the prong.
19

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 20 of 28
The Decision reflects that the Chief Special Master appropriately followed this approach.
The Chief Special Master did not treat the presence or absence of specific kinds of evidence—
such as medical and scientific literature—in Petitioner’s filings as dispositive. Although the
Decision highlights how certain evidence previously helped petitioners meet their burdens of proof
in other cases, the Chief Special Master did not require Petitioner to provide such evidence to
support his causation theory. See, e.g., Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *28 (“[E]ven in the
context of the flu vaccine, . . . cases have often involved successful demonstrations by petitioners
that the wild flu viral components of the vaccine contain amino acid sequences that share
sequential and structural homology to self-structures (gangliosides) that would be the putative
target of autoimmune attack.”). Indeed, the Chief Special Master’s statement that Dr. Steinman
and Petitioner’s theory “could pass the preponderant test, if supported by sufficient and reliable
medical or scientific evidence” is immediately followed by a reassurance that “[a]ny number of
kinds of evidence in combination could meet this standard.” Id. (emphasis in original). Such
statements do not represent a heightening of the appropriate burden of proof for the first Althen
prong, but rather are simple articulations of the appropriate standard for the analysis: a petitioner
must provide reliable, preponderant evidence supporting a causation theory to meet the burden of
proof but need not provide supportive scientific or medical literature specifically. See Kottenstette,
861 F. App’x at 440–41; Sharpe, 964 F.3d at 1078; Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322; Trollinger, 2023
WL 2521912, at *28 (discussing Petitioner’s need to provide evidence that “crosses the
preponderant ‘line’”).
As the Chief Special Master appropriately required Petitioner demonstrate the plausibility
of his causation theory by a preponderance of the evidence, and nowhere required the presentation
20

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 21 of 28
of specific types of supporting evidence, Petitioner’s argument that the Chief Special Master
erroneously applied a heightened burden of proof lacks merit.
B. The Chief Special Master Did Not Use a Credibility Determination to Apply an
Erroneous Legal Standard.
Petitioner’s second argument contends the Chief Special Master “cloak[ed] the application
of an erroneous legal standard in the guise of a credibility determination” concerning Petitioner’s
expert, Dr. Steinman. Mot. at 16 (quoting Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1379). However, that a special
master may “make determinations as to the reliability of the evidence presented to them and . . .
as to the credibility of the persons presenting that evidence” is not contested. Moberly, 592 F.3d
at 1326; Mot. at 18 n.5 (“Of course, Petitioner is not challenging [the Chief Special Master’s]
credibility evaluation standing alone; rather, it is the use of a credibility determination in
combination with an improper evidentiary standard that is problematic.”). Petitioner’s second
argument is thus effectively an extension of his first, contending the Chief Special Master used
credibility determinations to apply an improperly heightened burden of proof. Such an argument
fails for the same reason articulated above in Discussion Section I.A: the Chief Special Master
properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to Althen prong one. Petitioner does
not contend the Chief Special Master’s determinations resulted in any burden of proof higher than
a preponderant standard, and a review of the Decision does not indicate that the Special Master
deviated by applying, for example, either the clear and convincing evidence standard or the beyond
a reasonable doubt standard. See Mot. at 14 (claiming the Chief Special Master imposed “a
heightened preponderance burden on Petitioner, . . . improperly elevat[ing] the applicable
evidentiary standard.”). Indeed, the Chief Special Master’s Decision frequently references that
Petitioner must demonstrate the plausibility of the proffered medical theory by a preponderance of
the evidence and reflects that the Chief Special Master analyzed any evidence presented under that
21

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 22 of 28
standard. See Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *20–*21, *25, *27–*31. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
second argument similarly lacks merit, as there was not an “erroneous legal standard” applied in
the Decision for the Chief Special Master to “cloak . . . in the guise of a credibility determination.”
Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1379; Mot. at 16.
C. The Chief Special Master Afforded Petitioner’s Theory Fair Consideration.
Finally, Petitioner contends the Chief Special Master committed legal error by failing to
provide Petitioner’s medical theory fair consideration due to his purported predisposition against
molecular mimicry theories. Mot. at 18–23. As evidence of the Chief Special Master’s alleged
predisposition, Petitioner cites to other cases in which special masters of this Court accepted
molecular mimicry theories—including cases specifically alleging causation between the PCV-13
vaccine and GBS—and criticizes the Decision’s comments regarding Dr. Steinman’s final expert
report. Mot. at 18–23 (“[I]n the case of Prevnar-13 and GBS, three other special masters have
considered the precise theory advanced here and all found that Althen prong one was satisfied.”).
Petitioner’s Motion fails to allege a specific legal error brought about by the Chief Special
Master’s purported predisposition against molecular mimicry. In citing to multiple opinions
accepting molecular mimicry theories in various contexts, Petitioner suggests the mere fact that
the Chief Special Master rejected the theory is indicative of tainted reasoning. See Mot. at 22
(“Appreciating that [the Chief Special Master] may view molecular mimicry with skepticism, it is
difficult to understand how four other special masters can accept the precise theory offered by
Petitioner here . . . .”). Yet, Petitioner concedes other special masters’ opinions were not binding
on the Chief Special Master, and Petitioner advances no support for the contention that this Court
may find a special master to have erred by reaching a different conclusion than some critical mass
of their peers. Mot. at 21 (“[T]he decision of one special master is not binding on another special
22

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 23 of 28
master in another case.”); see Boatman, 941 F.3d at 1358–59. Indeed, the Decision contains
express acknowledgement of other special masters’ opinions and explanations for why the Chief
Special Master declined to follow the reasoning of such opinions in this case. Trollinger, 2023
WL 2521912, at *26.
Petitioner also highlights the Chief Special Master only cited his own cases in rejecting a
molecular mimicry theory for PCV-13 and GBS. Mot. at 20–22 (“[I]t is worth noting that the only
cases cited in the Decision that reach a contrary result are decisions written by [the Chief Special
Master].”). Again, simply stating that other special masters have found in favor of entitlement
when presented with a theory does not equate to the Chief Special Master demonstrating a
prejudice against that theory. Nor is the Chief Special Master the only special master to have ruled
against entitlement in a case with a GBS diagnosis following a PCV-13 vaccination based on a
molecular mimicry theory. See Winkler v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-203V, 2021 WL
6276203 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 10, 2021) (Dorsey, Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.), aff’d, 2022 WL
1528779 (Fed. Cl. May 13, 2022), appeal docketed, No. 22-1960 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 28, 2022).
Additionally, the Chief Special Master has previously granted entitlement under theories of
molecular mimicry in a variety of contexts, suggesting any assumed skepticism towards the theory
does not lead to unfair consideration of it. See Lozano v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-
369V, 2017 WL 3811124 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 4, 2017), aff’d, 143 Fed. Cl. 763 (2019), aff'd,
958 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020); L.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-722V, 2021 WL
3630315 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 2, 2021); Gerhardt v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 9-
180V, 2014 WL 4712690 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 29, 2014).
Petitioner has thus not provided this Court with indicia of true factual or legal error, but
instead appears to be asking this Court to re-weigh the evidence already considered by the Chief
23

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 24 of 28
Special Master to reach a pre-determined outcome in line with the other cited special masters.
Whether this Court would reach a different conclusion than the Chief Special Master if it
conducted a de novo review of the facts in the record is of no moment. Such a review would be
inconsistent with the appellate posture this Court adopts in vaccine cases, as this Court may not
reweigh evidence and instead is limited to determining whether a special master appropriately
engaged with the record and provided due consideration such that it cannot be said their
conclusions were arbitrary and capricious. Porter, 663 F.3d at 1249 (directing that the court does
“not reweigh the factual evidence, assess whether the special master correctly evaluated the
evidence, or examine the probative value of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses—these
are all matters within the purview of the fact finder”); Lampe, 219 F.3d at 1363 (“[W]e do not sit
to reweigh the evidence. Since the special master's conclusion was based on evidence in the record
that was not wholly implausible, we are compelled to uphold that finding as not being arbitrary or
capricious.”); Cedillo, 617 F.3d at 1338 (same).
Upon review of the Decision, this Court does not find the Chief Special Master’s
conclusions to be arbitrary and capricious. The Chief Special Master clearly conducted a thorough
and detailed review of the factual record before him, noting at each step the bases for his
determinations. In considering Petitioner’s causation theory—featuring molecular mimicry—as
presented by Dr. Steinman, the Chief Special Master began by acknowledging the acceptance of
molecular mimicry in the context of the flu vaccine and GBS. Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at
*25–*26. He noted that while other special masters have accepted a similar association between
the PCV-13 vaccine and GBS, key differences between the vaccines—their composition, their
interactions with the immune system, and the disparate persuasiveness of the evidence in favor of
causality—counseled against following suit in this case. Id. at *26–*27.
24

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 25 of 28
Having illuminated his disagreement with the other special masters and outlined the
reasons why he views the flu vaccine-GBS association as lacking persuasive power here, the Chief
Special Master proceeded to analyze Dr. Steinman’s expert reports and presentations of
Petitioner’s causation theory. In doing so, the Chief Special Master described the kinds of
evidence that have proven persuasive in the flu vaccine-GBS context—including demonstrations
that the “wild flu viral components of the vaccine contain amino acid sequences that share
sequential and structural homology to self-structures (gangliosides) that would be the putative
target of autoimmune attack.” Id. at *28. The Chief Special Master’s analysis of Dr. Steinman’s
expert reports expresses concern over their paucity of similarly persuasive evidence; however, he
does not end his discussion there. Rather, the Chief Special Master detailed his concerns with
Petitioner’s causation theory, especially in light of the counterarguments expressed by Dr.
Vartanian and Dr. Whitton in their expert reports. Id. at *28–*29. Specifically, the Chief Special
Master noted Dr. Steinman’s erroneous reliance on “phospholipids” in his first two expert reports,
which, while corrected in later reports, “reasonably call[ed] into question what followed.” Id. at
*28. The Chief Special Master then discussed Dr. Whitton’s “numerous insightful critiques of the
specific components of the core causation theory,” such as a demonstration that “it is not likely
that antibodies generated to the phosphoglycerol-specific vaccine antigens can in turn react with
host tissue phospholipids, or that GBS is primarily or initially mediated by such a cross-reaction.”
Id. (emphasis omitted). The Decision also expressed concern regarding Dr. Steinman’s research
methods and reliance on a study that “ultimately stands mostly for the conclusion that the
pneumococcal vaccine reliably functions as intended.” Id. at *29 (emphasis omitted).
The Decision then described with specificity perceived faults in the biological logic of the
proffered theory. The Chief Special Master stated Petitioner had not demonstrated by
25

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 26 of 28
preponderant evidence that “antibodies produced in response to the pneumococcal vaccine can
attack nerve structures and instigate GBS,” and that Dr. Whitton “convincingly explained why it
could not be assumed, and had not been shown, that an antibody produced in response to one of
the vaccine’s phosphoglycerol-containing polysaccharides would be recognized by a myelin
phospholipid structure.” Id. Also rejected for lack of credible supporting evidence were Dr.
Steinman’s arguments concerning cross-reaction between vaccine conjugate and contactin and the
“role alum would play in the process of pathogenicity,” with the Chief Special Master finding
these components of the causation theory to be “bare-bones” and presented “without hardly any
evidence” in their favor. Id.
Finally, the Chief Special Master discussed the timing of Dr. Steinman’s expert reports,
using phrasing which Petitioner describes as “[u]nfair and [u]nwarranted.” Mot. at 22–23.
Petitioner specifically criticizes the Chief Special Master’s conclusion “that Dr. Steinman refined
his theory solely because the case’s slow course permitted him the time to do so, rather than
because compelling independent reasons existed.” Id. at 22 (emphasis in original) (quoting
Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *30). That statement, however, came at the very end of the
Chief Special Master’s thorough analysis of the causation theory and Dr. Steinman’s reports,
voicing a conclusion based on the preceding analysis rather than any animus that clouded it. See
Trollinger, 2023 WL 2521912, at *30.
Given the breadth and depth of the Chief Special Master’s engagement with the record
before him, this Court does not find the factual conclusions in the Decision to demonstrate arbitrary
and capricious decision making. Petitioner’s position that the evidence should have been weighed
differently is not sufficient ground to sustain a motion for review, nor is a special master’s
disagreement with a proffered causation theory proof of a predisposition leading to arbitrary
26

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 27 of 28
factual conclusions. That Petitioner does not point to specific evidence allegedly overlooked by
the Chief Special Master, does not identify clear errors in the analysis, and does not expressly
assert that Petitioner’s evidence meets the preponderant standard all suggest Petitioner simply
wishes for this Court to reweigh the evidence in the record already afforded consideration by the
Chief Special Master. The law requires this Court to decline such an invitation. See Porter, 663
F.3d at 1249; Cedillo, 617 F.3d at 1338. Accordingly, this Court finds the Chief Special Master
to have fairly considered Petitioner’s causation theory.
II. Althen Prongs Two and Three
Petitioner urges this Court to “determine that all three Althen prongs have been satisfied
and therefore issue a decision in favor of entitlement” should this Court determine the Chief
Special Master erred in finding Petitioner to fail the first Althen prong. Mot. at 24–25. Petitioner
cites as the basis for his request Decision footnote 45, which Petitioner characterizes as conceding
Petitioner’s proffered evidence satisfies both Althen prongs two and three. Id. (citing Trollinger,
2023 WL 2521912, at *27 n.45). Alternatively, Petitioner requests this Court—should it find
Althen prong one satisfied—“remand this matter for further consideration as to Althen prongs two
and three.” Mot. at 25.
When alleging a vaccine injury not listed in the Vaccine Table, a petitioner must
demonstrate causation by satisfying “all three Althen prongs by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Boatman, 941 F.3d at 1355; see Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. As discussed, the Chief Special Master
did not commit legal error in his analysis related to Althen prong one and, accordingly, this Court
declines to reverse his conclusion that Petitioner failed to meet the appropriate burden. See supra
Discussion Sections I.A–C. As Petitioner cannot satisfy Althen prong one, Petitioner’s request
that this Court issue a decision of entitlement, based on a finding that Althen prongs two and three
27

Case 1:16-vv-00473-EMR Document 90 Filed 08/15/23 Page 28 of 28
are satisfied, is accordingly denied. Althen 418 F.3d at 1278 (providing a petitioner must satisfy
all three prongs to show “that the vaccination brought about her injury”). This Court denies on the
same grounds Petitioner’s request for remand for further consideration as to Althen prongs two
and three.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s Motion for Review (ECF No. 85) is DENIED. The Chief Special Master’s
Decision (ECF No. 81) is SUSTAINED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment
accordingly.
The parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Notice within 14 days, attaching a
proposed public version of this Memorandum and Order, with any protect information redacted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Eleni M. Roumel
ELENI M. ROUMEL
Judge
July 31, 2023
Washington, D.C.
28