VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01630
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01630
Petitioner: Matthew J. Johnson
Filed: 2016-12-09
Decided: 2025-01-23
Vaccine: hepatitis A/B
Vaccination date: 2015-03-18
Condition: small fiber neuropathy
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Matthew J. Johnson filed a petition for compensation on December 9, 2016, alleging that he suffered from small fiber neuropathy (SFN) as a result of receiving the hepatitis A/B vaccine (Twinrix) on March 18, 2015. At the time of vaccination, Mr. Johnson was 37 years old. He reported experiencing symptoms approximately eight days after vaccination, initially presenting as joint pain, fatigue, and weakness, which evolved into numbness, tingling, and altered temperature sensation in his extremities, consistent with SFN. After reviewing medical records, expert testimony, and medical literature, Special Master Thomas L. Gowen found that Mr. Johnson had established by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered from small fiber neuropathy and that the Twinrix vaccine caused his condition. The Special Master concluded that SFN can be an autoimmune disorder triggered by vaccines, similar to Guillain-Barré syndrome, and that the temporal relationship between the vaccination and the onset of symptoms was medically acceptable. The case was ruled entitled to compensation, with a separate damages order to follow. Petitioner was represented by Richard Gage of Richard Gage, P.C., and respondent was represented by Benjamin P. Warder of the United States Department of Justice. The decision was issued on January 23, 2025, based on a ruling signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen on December 30, 2024.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Matthew J. Johnson, age 37, received the hepatitis A/B vaccine (Twinrix) on March 18, 2015. He alleged that this vaccination caused him to develop small fiber neuropathy (SFN). Petitioner's medical records documented symptoms beginning approximately eight days post-vaccination, including joint pain, fatigue, weakness, numbness, tingling, and altered temperature sensation in his extremities, consistent with SFN. Petitioner's treating neurologist, Dr. James Bobenhouse, and expert witness Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne opined that the Twinrix vaccine caused petitioner's SFN, theorizing an autoimmune response triggered by the vaccine, potentially through molecular mimicry, similar to Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Dr. Kinsbourne cited medical literature suggesting SFN can be an immune-mediated disorder and that small nerve fibers can be targets for autoimmune attack, analogous to GBS. Respondent's expert, Dr. Vinay Chaudhry, opined that petitioner did not have SFN and that the vaccine did not cause his condition, arguing that SFN is not typically autoimmune and is not similar to GBS, and that petitioner's symptoms and test results were inconsistent with SFN. The Special Master, Thomas L. Gowen, found that petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered from SFN and that the Twinrix vaccine caused his condition. The Special Master relied on the clinical history, examinations, and expert opinions, particularly Dr. Kinsbourne's, finding the temporal relationship medically acceptable and the autoimmune theory plausible. The case was ruled entitled to compensation. Petitioner was represented by Richard Gage, P.C., and respondent by the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision date was January 23, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01630-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-01-23
Pages: 47
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/30/2024) regarding 98 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 1 of 47
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: December 30, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MATTHEW J. JOHNSON, *
*
* No. 16-1630V
Petitioner, *
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for petitioner.
Benjamin P. Warder, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 9, 2016, Matthew J. Johnson (“petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1).
Petitioner alleged as a result of receiving the hepatitis A/B vaccine (Twinrix) on March 18, 2015,
he suffered from small fiber neuropathy (“SNF”). After an entitlement hearing and a review of
the record, petitioner has established by preponderant evidence that he is entitled to
compensation.
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The Court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the opinion
is posted on the Court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). An objecting party must provide the Court with a proposed
redacted version of the opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will
be posted on the Court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to 34 (2012)
(hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of
the Act.

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 2 of 47
I. Procedural History
Petitioner filed his claim for compensation on December 9, 2016. The petition was
accompanied by medical records to support his claim. See Petitioner’s (“Pet’r”) Exhibits (“Ex.”)
2-29 (ECF Nos. 16, 18, 26, 36).
On April 23, 2018, petitioner filed an expert report from Marcel Kinsbourne, MD. Pet.
Ex. 30 (ECF No. 37). Respondent filed a responsive expert report from Vinay Chaudhry, MD.
Respondent’s (“Resp.”) Ex. A (ECF No. 40).
I held a Rule 5 Status Conference on September 25, 2018. I explained that both experts
wrote their reports prior to petitioner being seen by a neurologist and being prescribed Topamax,
a medication for treating neuropathic pain. Rule 5 Order (ECF No. 42). Further, it appeared that
petitioner’s diagnosis of SFN was an outstanding issue that needed to be addressed by experts
from both parties. Id. at 2.
Both parties filed supplemental expert reports. See Pet’r Ex. 45; Resp. Ex. B. On June
11, 2019, respondent filed the Rule 4(c) report recommending against compensation. Resp.
Rept. (ECF No. 49). The undersigned held a Rule 5 status conference on June 25, 2019, when I
recommended that the parties engage in settlement negotiations, as it appears that petitioner
would likely prevail in this matter. Rule 5 Order (ECF No. 51). However, respondent
maintained his position that “this case is not appropriate for compensation under the terms of the
Vaccine Act,” and settlement was not a possibility. Resp. Status Rept. (ECF No. 56).
Accordingly, an entitlement hearing was held on April 28, 2021, when Dr. James
Bobenhouse, a treating neurologist, and Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne testified in support of
petitioner’s claim and Dr. Vinay Chaudhry appeared on behalf of respondent. Petitioner filed a
post-hearing brief on September 1, 2021 and respondent filed a responsive post-hearing brief on
January 18, 2022. See Pet’r Brief (ECF No. 87); Resp. Brief (ECF No. 91). This matter is now
ripe for adjudication.
II. Petitioner’s medical history
At the time of petitioner’s vaccination, on March 18, 2015, petitioner was 37 years-old
with a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (“GERD”), low back pain treated with epidural
injections, left knee pain and surgery, which was treated with epidural injections, sleep apnea,
and had his gallbladder removed. See Pet’r Ex. 15 at 814,931, 939, 941, 956. Petitioner received
the Twinrix Hepatitis A/B vaccine on March 18, 2015 from the Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital
Employee Health & Safety Services. Pet’r Ex. 2.
On March 25, 2015, seven days post-vaccination, petitioner had an appointment with his
primary care physician, Dr. Patrick J. Bertolini. Pet’r Ex. 4 at 1. Petitioner’s “chief complaint”
was pain primarily in the hips and shoulders. Petitioner reported that his pain was an 8/10 and
the pain had lasted five days, since March 20, 2015. Id. The “History of Present Illness”
provides:
2

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 3 of 47
Pt comes in reporting that he started getting sick with myalgias and arthralgias, especially
of the shoulders and hips. Started up on Friday, March 20, 2015. Started hepatitis B
vaccine series on Wednesday, 3/18/2015. Has been having severe bilateral shoulder pain,
bilateral hip pain. Most of the arthralgias are in the shoulders and hips. Had a lot of
myalgias. Denies any fever or chills….Is having a little bit of left ankle pain. Has never
had this kind of problem before. A month ago he and some friends went to Mexico. 1 of
his friends was hospitalized due to Reiter’s syndrome. Is worried that he might have
picked up some type of disease in Mexico or the hepatitis B vaccine is causing him to
have severe arthralgias and myalgias…Rates bilateral shoulder pain as an 8/10…Rates
bilateral hip pain at an 8-9/10. Left ankle pain is on the lateral malleolus area of the left
ankle. Otherwise, just kind of generalized myalgias of his arms and legs.
Id. Petitioner’s physical exam showed that he had reduced range of motion in his shoulders
bilaterally, including limited abduction, flexion, and extension. Id. at 2. He also had limited
range of motion in hip movement, especially on abduction, adduction, internal and external
rotation. Id. Petitioner’s left ankle was tender to palpation over the left ankle lateral malleolus
area. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with “severe arthralgias and myalgias” and “severe bilateral
shoulder pain, bilateral hip pain, secondary to possible viral etiology versus the possibility of a
rheumatologic disorder, versus the possibility of a reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine. Id. at 3.
The next day, Thursday, March 26, 2015, petitioner presented to the emergency
department of Bryan Medical Center for fatigue and body aches. Pet’r Ex. 5. Petitioner reported
that “since Friday he has had extreme fatigue, joint pains, and achiness.” Id. at 1. Petitioner
reported that he received a hepatitis vaccine the previous Wednesday. Id. Petitioner had a full
lab work-up in the emergency department, where he was negative for influenza, his EKG was
normal, and his chest x-ray also appeared normal. Id. at 7. Petitioner was discharged after a shot
of Toradol and morphine and given a prescription for hydrocodone. Id.
On March 27, 2015, petitioner returned to the emergency department of Bryan Medical
Center, again complaining of fatigue and weakness. Pet’r Ex. 6 at 1. This time he was admitted
to the hospital until March 31, 2015. Id. His discharge diagnosis included, “myalgias,
arthralgias with severe fatigue and body ache following a combination vaccination for hepatitis
A and hepatitis B,” along with obstructive sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux, and acute
transaminitis,3 gradually improving.” Id. at 1. An ultrasound of petitioner’s abdomen showed
hepatosplenomegaly, fatty infiltration of the liver, and status post-cholecystectomy. Id.
Petitioner’s IgM to cytomegalovirus was negative and he had a borderline positive IgG. Under
“Reason for Hospital Admission and Hospital Course,” it notes that petitioner “received a
combination vaccine for hepatitis A and B. Within two days [petitioner] started having myalgias,
arthralgias. He felt very fatigued and weak. He felt like he wanted to sleep all the
time…..Autoimmune hepatitis workup is currently still in progress. We are going to do a
workup for chronic liver disease that is all in progress.” Id. at 2.
3 Transaminitis is high levels of transaminase, which are enzymes released into the blood by the liver.
Transaminitis, Cleveland Clinic, March 14, 2024, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/transaminitis, last
accessed on December 2, 2024.
3

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 4 of 47
While petitioner was hospitalized, he was seen by infectious disease specialist, Dr. Paul
N. Gobbo. Pet’r Ex. 7 at 1. Dr. Gobbo recorded that petitioner received the Twinrix vaccine on
March [18] and that within two or three days, petitioner began to develop “extreme fatigue and
malaise along with generalized arthralgias which seemed to start especially in the hips and
shoulders, eventually involving pretty much all of his joints.” Id. Petitioner did not have any
significant joint swelling and did not have any fever or chills. Id. During the physical exam, Dr.
Gobbo recorded that petitioner may have “trace edema of the lower extremities, but there were
no significant joint effusions noted,” and that petitioner had “good range of motion at both the
knees and hips, but did have some pain on cross-leg testing bilaterally.” Id. at 2. Dr. Gobbo’s
impression was a “vaccine reaction to the Twinrix causing a serum sickness-type reaction which
manifests mainly as poly-arthralgias and severe fatigue.” Id. at 3. Dr. Gobbo placed petitioner
on high-dose ibuprofen three times a day and wanted to check for an autoimmune disease. Id.
After his hospitalization, petitioner had an appointment with Dr. Bertolini on April 3,
2015. Pet’r Ex. 14 at 100. Petitioner reported having pain in his knees and feet and that he was
now experiencing paresthesias and dysesthesias of his feet bilaterally. Id. Most of the pain was
still in his shoulders and hips. Id. Petitioner demonstrated limited range of motion for his
shoulders and a slow wide stance and antalgic gait due to bilateral hip pain. Id. at 102. Dr.
Bertolini diagnosed petitioner with “multiple joint arthropathy, especially of the shoulders and
knees bilaterally due to vaccine induced arthropathy with limited range of motion of the
shoulders and hips and complaints of weakness of his arms and legs and paresthesias and
dysesthesias of his feet bilaterally secondary to the hepatitis A and B combination vaccine
administered mandatorily for work purposes.” Id. at 102.
Petitioner was hospitalized again from April 7 to April 10, 2015. While he was
hospitalized, petitioner was seen by neurologist, Dr. Sunil Nadir, because petitioner was
experiencing numbness and tingling in his hands and feet, which were concerning for Guillain-
Barre syndrome. Pet’r Ex. 9 at 1. Dr. Nadir examined petitioner and found he had abnormal
sensation to pinprick on the dorsum of the hands and distal forearm and in the dorsum of his feet.
Id. Additionally, sensation to vibration was mildly decreased over petitioner’s knuckles and
toes. Id. at 2. Dr. Nadir opined that petitioner did not have GBS because petitioner’s strength
and reflexes were preserved. Id. at 3. Petitioner had a consultation with rheumatologist, Dr.
Rick C. Chatwell, who recorded that petitioner had been complaining of weakness and “a cold,
numb sensation involving his extremities, particularly his feet.” Pet’r Ex. 8 at 5. He wrote that
petitioner was complaining of arthralgias involving the large joints, particularly his shoulders
and hips, and notably did not experience any defined fevers, chills, night sweats, or skin rashes.
Id. Dr. Chatwell’s impression was:
Migratory severe polyarthralgias with large joint predominance. Differential diagnosis
includes a reactive phenomenon such as a post vaccination? Or post viral etiology. The
patient lacks fevers or skin rash to suggest adult-onset of Still disease and his current
clinical presentation is not suggestive of a rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus
erythematosus, etc. No obvious preceding infection has been defined…..5. Sensory
neuropathy?
4

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 5 of 47
Id. at 7. Dr. Chatwell began petitioner on a corticosteroid therapy, beginning with 30 mg of
prednisone. Id.
Petitioner had an appointment with neurologist, Dr. Robert Sundell on April 17, 2015.
Pet’r Ex. 24. Petitioner reported that since he was first hospitalized in late March, his feet have
been cold and his hands “feel like big balloons or Mario brother hands,” and that “the top half of
his hands and feet feel different.” Id. at 8. Petitioner had decreased sensation to pinprick on his
feet until above his ankles bilaterally and decreased sensation to pinprick until his elbows. Id. at
9. Dr. Sundell recommended that petitioner have an EMG/NCS and an MRI to rule out any
myelopathic process. Id. at 8.
Petitioner underwent an EMG/NCS on April 24, 2015. Pet’r Ex. 24 at 4. The impression
of the exam was, “Entirely normal examination of the right upper and right lower extremities
without indications of distal polyneuropathy or radiculopathy.” Id. at 7. Petitioner’s sensory
responses for the median and ulnar nerves “were also well within normal limits.” Id. At an
appointment with Dr. Sundell, petitioner reported that his symptoms are “somewhat better,” but
that he still suffered from significant joint pain. Pet’r Ex. 10 at 1. Petitioner had reflexes and his
strength in his deltoid and interossei were marked as “good.” Id. However, petitioner still
experienced decreased sensation to pinprick on the dorsal surface of his forearm and his
sensation to vibration on his knuckles had improved, while he had intact sensation to vibration in
his ankles. Id. Dr. Sundell stated that he “cannot find a definite neurological cause for his
subjective sensory symptoms. He continues to have pain symptoms in his joints for which he is
seeing Dr. Palmer.” Id. No follow-up was scheduled.
At an appointment with Dr. Bertolini on September 4, 2015, petitioner explained that he
was no longer having any myalgias or arthralgias, however, he was still having problems with
paresthesias and decreased sensation to light touch. Pet’r Ex. 14 at 57. Additionally, he had
diminished sensation to cold and hot temperatures, and it was presenting in a “stocking/glove
distribution” that was affecting his hands to his elbows bilaterally and affecting his feet and toes
up to his knees. Id. Petitioner had decreased sensation to light touch of his occipital scalp and
left anterior chest and left lateral neck area. Id. On his neurological exam, he demonstrated
abnormal sensation to light touch, including decreased sensation to light touch and pinprick at
the hands and feet in a stocking glove pattern. Id. at 60. Dr. Bertolini diagnosed petitioner with
“disturbance of skin sensation,” along with “polyarthritis,” and “polyarthropathy or polyarthritis
of multiple sites.” Id. Dr. Bertolini also wrote, “Hepatitis A and B vaccine reaction with
myalgias, arthralgias which is improving but with persistent paresthesias and dysesthesia of the
hands and feet to the mid-elbows and to the knees bilaterally in a stocking and glove
distribution.” Id. at 61.
Petitioner had another appointment with Dr. Gobbo on October 15, 2015 for “vertigo and
low blood sugar.” Pet’r Ex. 18 at 3. Petitioner reported having generalized fatigue and tiredness,
as well as numbness of his extremities “from just above the elbows down, and from the knees on
down.” Id. However, his arthralgias were not quite as severe at the time. Id. Dr. Gobbo wrote
that “[t]he etiology of his symptoms is unclear, but all seem to stem from the Twinrix
vaccination last March, so suspect idiosyncratic reaction.” Id. at 4.
5

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 6 of 47
On November 12, 2015, petitioner had an appointment with Dr. Sara May, an allergist.
Pet’r Ex. 11 at 1. Dr. May reviewed petitioner’s history and noted that petitioner had been to
several specialists, including neurologists, rheumatologists, and gastroenterologists, to determine
what has caused his underlying symptoms. Id. She wrote that the onset of petitioner’s
symptoms, mainly arthralgias and myalgias, occurred after he received the Twinrix vaccine. Id.
Petitioner’s symptoms had resolved since he began taking Cymbalta and gabapentin. Id. The
main symptoms he was experiencing was bilateral hand and feet numbness. Id. Petitioner also
reported that he was having significant flushing and diaphoresis but has never had his autonomic
nervous system evaluated. Id. Dr. May stated that, “Review of FDA approved package insert
for this vaccine reveals that patient can have headaches as well as arthralgias myalgias and some
of the symptoms he describes. It is also noted that Neomycin is in the vaccine.” Id. However,
she did not list the significance of Neomycin in her evaluation. After she performed a physical
exam of the petitioner Dr. May wrote:
I was asked to see [petitioner] to determine if this was a serum sickness reaction to the
Twinrix vaccine. He denies rash or fever and both of these are generally seen with serum
sickness. In addition, the treatment of serum sickness is removal of the drug and should
improve within a couple of weeks. Symptomatic treatment can be used, including
steroids, which he received. Some of his symptoms were noted in a small amount (<1%)
of patients that received this vaccine. There is no way to evaluate if the initial episode
was serum sickness, but unlikely based on history and treatment has already been done.
However, this could have increased his immune system reactivity and started a new
problem. Based on the above listed symptoms, I am more concerned about an autonomic
dysfunction or almost POTS. In addition, need to rule out underlying mast cell disease.
Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s blood work and tryptase levels were normal. Id. at 3.
Petitioner had an appointment with Dr. Bertolini on January 26, 2016, for right arm pain,
along with numbness and paresthesias. Pet’r Ex. 14 at 22. Petitioner reported that he was having
“persistent tingling and numbness of his arms and legs from the shoulders down to his fingers
and from his knees down to his toes.” Id. Dr. Bertolini wrote, “he has been having problems
with persistent paresthesias, numbness of his arms and legs since the vaccine reaction.” Id.
Petitioner was having problems at work performing fine dexterity manipulation of tools, bolts,
and screws because of the tingling and numbness in his fingers.” Id. Under current “Preventative
Care” it listed “hepatitis B vaccine: 3/18/2015 Twinrix with post-vaccine polyarthropathy with
elevated LFTs.” Id. Petitioner had abnormal sensation to light touch, which was marked as
“diminished hands and lower legs bilaterally, abnormal sensation to pain, peripheral nerves were
abnormal and leg numbness and paresthesias.” Id. at 25. Petitioner had normal gait and motor
function. Id. Petitioner’s primary diagnosis was, “chronic numbness, tingling, and paresthesias
of his arms and legs, stocking glove neuropathy due to post-Hepatitis A and B vaccine reaction
causing polyarthropathy and elevated liver function test. Vaccine was given on 3/18/2015 and
was hospitalized on March 27, 2015 for post-hepatitis A and B vaccine reaction.” Id. (emphasis
added).
On May 9, 2016, petitioner had an Autonomic Reflex Screen (“ARS”) and a Quantitative
Sensory Test (“QST”). Pet’r Ex. 25. The QSART test showed that petitioner had normal sweat
6

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 7 of 47
output at the left forearm, leg, and foot. Id. at 2. His heart rate response to deep breathing was
normal and his beat-to-beat blood pressure response was normal. Id. However, petitioner’s QST
showed “elevated vibratory, cooling, and heat-pain thresholds.” Id. Dr. Pariwat
Thaisetthawatkul wrote that petitioner’s EMG/NCS showed no evidence of large fiber
neuropathy, myopathy, or lumbosacral radiculopathy and that the blood tests are
“unremarkable.” Id. Dr. Thaisetthawatkul wrote that there was “no evidence from
electrophysiological studies to indicate a neuromuscular cause for his symptoms,” but ordered a
skin biopsy to determine if petitioner has small fiber neuropathy. Id.
On July 26, 2016, petitioner saw Dr. Pariwat Thaisetthawatkul at the University of
Nebraska Neuromuscular Clinic for skin biopsy to determine if petitioner “could have small fiber
neuropathy that may explain the numbness/pain symptoms.” Pet’r Ex. 22 at 1. One sample was
taken from above his right ankle and another from his right upper thigh. Id. The samples were
mailed to the University of Rochester Medical Center for analysis. Id. at 6. The results from the
ankle sample show that “epidermal nerve fiber density is within normal limits for age, when
assessing dermal-epidermal junction crossing fibers. The epidermal nerve fiber density estimate
is 11.1 fibers/mm (normal >5.2 fibers/mm). Morphologic analysis shows some small and
medium sized axonal swellings.” Id. at 9. The sample from petitioner’s right thigh did not show
any significant axonal swelling in the morphologic analysis. Id. The final diagnosis from the
neuropathology report provided, “No clear pathologic evidence of a small fiber neuropathy based
on epidermal nerve fiber densities at the distal leg and proximal thigh.” Id. at 13. Dr.
Thaisettawatkul contacted petitioner and informed him that the skin biopsy results from the
University of Rochester “came back normal and show no evidence of small fiber neuropathy.”
Id. at 16. Dr. Thaisettawatkul also wrote, “Surely he does not have peripheral neuropathy, either
large or small fiber neuropathy to explain his numbness/tingling.” Id.
On September 1, 2016, petitioner had an appointment with Dr. Gobbo and reported that
he reported improved joint pain, although still present. Pet’r Ex. 18 at 1. His pain in his knees,
shoulders, hips, and elbows were now intermittent. Id. He also told Dr. Gobbo that he was
having numbness of the upper extremity, from the elbows down and from the knees down. Id.
Dr. Gobbo recorded that skin biopsies were done, looking for small nerve fiber pathology, but
none was found. Id. Dr. Gobbo wrote, “The temporal relation of his symptoms, especially the
fatigue and arthralgias, shortly after the Twinrix vaccination, suggests an idiosyncratic reaction
to the vaccine as the most likely cause of his problems.” Id. The physical exam found that
petitioner had “decreased sensation of forearms, hands, legs, and feet to touch and pinprick,”
with his reflexes intact. Id. at 2. He was assessed with “numbness of limbs,” and “vaccine
adverse reaction, Twinrix.” Id.
Dr. Gobbo wrote a letter on November 15, 2016 stating that he has treated petitioner
since April 2015. Pet’r Ex. 7 at 10. Dr. Gobbo wrote that petitioner received the Twinrix
vaccine on March 17, 2015 because of his occupation as plumber with risk of exposure to
hepatitis A and B. Id. He stated that “shortly after receiving the vaccine, [petitioner] developed
progressively worsening joint pains, especially around his shoulders, hips, as well as other
joints.” Id. Dr. Gobbo wrote that petitioner was still experiencing fatigue, as well as continued
polyarthralgias, mainly involving the knees, shoulders, hips, and elbows. Id. Petitioner
continued to experience paresthesias, or tingling and numb sensation of the upper extremities
7

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 8 of 47
from the elbows down, as well as the lower extremities from the knees down. Id. Dr. Gobbo
stated, “No specific cause or disease was ever found to explain these symptoms, but the temporal
relation to the Twinrix vaccination very strongly suggests that he had an idiosyncratic adverse
reaction to the vaccine, with continued post-vaccination polyarthralgias and peripheral
neuropathy with paresthesias of the distal limbs.” Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Gobbo on April 16, 2018, 37 months post-vaccination. Pet’r
Ex. 42 at 1. Dr. Gobbo stated that petitioner was there for a follow-up evaluation and
consideration of a repeat nerve biopsy. Id. Dr. Gobbo noted that the previous skin biopsy
petitioner had in 2016 “did not demonstrate any specific pathology, but there was some concern
about early-stage nerve damage, especially with axonal swelling of the small and medium
nerves.” Id. Additionally, Dr. Gobbo noted that petitioner had now brought his vaccine claim.
Id. At the time of the appointment, petitioner was still experiencing joint pains and myalgias
predominantly in his lower extremities and numbness, as well as “marked fatigue.” Id. The
objective physical exam did not reveal any “significant motor or sensory deficits.” Id. Dr.
Gobbo stated that he would consult with a neurosurgical specialist, Dr. Steven Gogela for
consideration of a repeat scan and nerve biopsy. Id.
Dr. Gogela wrote to Dr. Gobbo on April 24, 2018, and stated that a repeat nerve biopsy
“could certainly be indicated for him, [at] this point, as we seek further information regarding the
nature of his condition.” Id. at 4. He also opined that petitioner should also have a “repeat
neurological evaluation to guide the biopsy and interpret the results.” Id. Dr. Gogela referred
petitioner to Neurology Associates for a detailed evaluation prior to proceeding with a repeat
nerve biopsy. Id.
Petitioner had his first appointment with Dr. James Bobenhouse, a neurologist, on May
11, 2018. Pet’r Ex. 43. Dr. Bobenhouse provided a brief summary of petitioner’s medical
history, which is as follows:
…he is a 40-year-old right-handed white male, who states that he had been in good health
except for obstructive sleep apnea up until 2015 when he received a hepatitis A and B
vaccine as a requirement for his work. Approximately three days later, he said that he
felt disoriented and had diffuse joint pains. He says that he felt generally weak and had
diffuse pain, which worsened with exertion. The pain was essentially incapacitating and
at times, he says that he screamed because of the discomfort…..He was subsequently
hospitalized for 10 days on and off work for a total of seven months. He was seen by Dr.
Thai at UNMC and [a] nerve condition study was performed, which apparently was
negative….He also had a probable nerve and muscles biopsies, which were also
inconclusive. He was thought to have an autonomic or small fiber neuropathy, which
was precipitated by the hepatitis vaccine.
Id. Petitioner continued to have paresthesias and dysesthesias in his feet and forelegs, as well as
in his hands and forearms. Id. Petitioner also endorsed shocking pains in his feet intermittently.
Id. He also described the pain as like “knives” in his hips, knees, shoulder, and elbows. Id. The
physical exam showed that petitioner had decreased sensation to pinprick and light touch in his
legs and feet, but he had normal vibratory and proprioceptive sensation in his feet. Id. at 3.
8

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 9 of 47
Additionally, petitioner had altered sensation in his hands with decreased sensation to pinprick
and light touch. Id. There was also a slightly altered sensation over petitioner’s forearms
bilaterally. Id. Petitioner had sensory loss over the abdomen below the T8 level. Id. Petitioner
also had decreased deep tendon reflexes, having absent right knee reflex and trace in his left,
along with an absent right ankle reflex. Id.
Petitioner’s repeat EMG/NCS was considered normal “with no evidence of
radiculopathy, plexopathy, myopathy, or large fiber sensory neuropathy.” Id. at 3, 5-6. Dr.
Bobenhouse diagnosed him with “diffuse arm and leg paresthesias/dysesthesias, suspect
secondary to small fiber sensory neuropathy in association with the hepatitis vaccine.” Id. at 3.
A repeat skin biopsy was not ordered.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Bobenhouse on March 23, 2020. Pet’r Ex. 47. Petitioner
reported that the Topamax was helping, but he still experienced hand and foot dysesthesias, and
if he missed a dose, the pain was much worse. Id. at 1. When using his hands for fine motor
tasks, it aggravates his pain. Id. For example, the use of his smoker makes it so he cannot hold a
fork afterwards because of the severe pain and tremors in his hands. Id. Petitioner endorsed cold
sensations in his feet and forelegs and his hands and forearms bilaterally. Id. Petitioner’s sensory
exam was positive for decreased sensation to pinprick in his feet and hands bilaterally. Id. at 2.
He also had altered sensation to light touch in his forearms and forelegs bilaterally.
Additionally, petitioner had absent deep tendon reflexes in his knees and ankles bilaterally. Id.
Dr. Bobenhouse diagnosed petitioner with “bilateral foreleg and foot, forearm and hand
paresthesias and dysesthesias. This is most likely due to small fiber sensory neuropathy in
association with the hepatitis [A] & B vaccine in 2015.” Id. at 3.
Dr. Bobenhouse called Re-Entry Rehabilitation services the same day stating that it was
his opinion that petitioner has “forearm and hand, and foreleg and foot paresthesias and
dysesthesias due to small fiber sensory neuropathy associated with the hepatitis vaccine.” Id. at
7. Dr. Bobenhouse stated that petitioner would likely need to continue ongoing therapy with
Topamax and anti-depression medication. Id. Additionally, Dr. Bobenhouse wrote that
petitioner may need assistance in performing physical and strenuous activities, such as lawn
mowing because of his ongoing hand and foot pain and dysesthesias. Id.
Re-entry Rehabilitation service coordinator, Ms. Liz Kattaman sent a letter back to Dr.
Bobenhouse, summarizing their conversation and included an additional assessment of what
petitioner may need in terms of long-term care. Id. at 7. The letter states that petitioner has
“autonomic or small fiber sensory neuropathy precipitated by the hepatitis vaccine,” and that
petitioner’s primary symptoms are “paresthesias and dysesthesias in his forearms and legs,
hands, and feet bilaterally.” Id. Petitioner’s condition between 2018 and 2020 did not change
and Dr. Bobenhouse indicated that petitioner would need one or two neurology visits per year for
the rest of his life and that he will require Topamax or a similar medication long term. Id.
Additionally, due to petitioner’s condition, his mental health has been affected and petitioner will
likely need an anti-depressant like Effexor for the long term as well. Id. Petitioner is likely to
need some assistance in doing heavier household work, such as snow removal and yard work.
Id.
9

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 10 of 47
III. Experts’ opinions on petitioner’s diagnosis and vaccine causation
a. Dr. James Bobenhouse
Dr. Bobenhouse, one of petitioner’s treating neurologists, testified during the entitlement
hearing. Transcript (“Tr.”) 5-44. Dr. Bobenhouse testified that he treats patients with a “wide
range of neurological problems,” with a quarter of his practice focused on neuromuscular issues,
such as peripheral neuropathy and carpal tunnel syndrome. Tr. 6. He stated that he also treats
patients with myasthenia gravis and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Id.
Dr. Bobenhouse testified that he diagnosed petitioner with small fiber sensory
neuropathy. Id. at 7. He stated that when petitioner first presented to him in May 2018,
petitioner complaining of “shock-like pains in his hands and feet and his examination was
consistent with small fiber sensory neuropathy.” Id. He stated that although petitioner had an
extensive work-up by neurologist Dr. Thaisetthawatkul, including an EMG/NCS and nerve
biopsies, which were normal and ruled out other types of neuropathy, including small fiber
neuropathy, he felt comfortable in making the diagnosis of small fiber sensory neuropathy based
on the history and examination at the time that he saw him. Id.
Dr. Bobenhouse explained that petitioner had no evidence of muscle weakness, cardiac
exam was normal, blood pressure was normal, and his cerebellar testing was normal. Tr. 9. Dr.
Bobenhouse stated that a drop in blood pressure may have represented evidence of neuropathy or
autonomic neuropathy, but there was no evidence of that. Tr. 8. Additionally, even though
petitioner had generally diminished reflexes, including absent right ankle jerk and trace reflexes
in the knees, those were essentially normal. Id. Dr. Bobenhouse stated that everyone has
different reflexes, and some athletes can have minimal or absent reflexes, which can indicate a
neuropathy or it can be the normal range. Tr. 11. Dr. Bobenhouse testified that there is a “wide
range” of normal for absent or decreased reflexes, so its only one factor that he takes into
consideration when examining a patient. Id. Later Dr. Bobenhouse clarified that the petitioner’s
diminished reflexes were not that important to determine whether petitioner had small fiber
neuropathy. Tr. 40. He stated that patients can have both large and small fiber neuropathy at the
same time, often seen in diabetics. Id.
Dr. Bobenhouse testified that petitioner’s symptoms of shock-like pains in his hands and
feet, and his sensory exam results fit the pattern of sensory neuropathy. Tr. 13. He stated that
petitioner’s sensory exam revealed decreased pinprick and light touch testing in his feet and legs
bilaterally. Tr. 8. Petitioner also had altered sensation in the hands with decreased pinprick and
light touch sensation, in a “stocking-glove type distribution.” Id. Dr. Bobenhouse testified that
petitioner also had decreased pinprick sensitivity at the T8 level as well. Id. He indicated that
petitioner’s sensory issues at the T8 level was not part of petitioner’s small fiber sensory
neuropathy. Id. at 25. Dr. Bobenhouse stated that the nerve conduction test that he performed
on petitioner’s left leg was normal, so he was able to rule out large fiber neuropathy, large fiber
sensory neuropathy and motor neuropathy. Tr. 12.
10

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 11 of 47
Dr. Bobenhouse testified that petitioner’s description of his shooting pain, the normal
nerve conduction test showing no large fiber neuropathy, and the EMG needle exam showing no
muscle changes to suggest another process, all fit with the diagnosis of a small fiber sensory
neuropathy. Tr. 13. Dr. Bobenhouse also stated that petitioner’s symptoms of numbness in a
stocking-glove distribution is consistent with a length-dependent type of sensory neuropathy. Id.
He explained that in small fiber neuropathies there are non-length dependent and length-
dependent, and the length-dependent neuropathy means it is at the very end of the nerves, which
would implicate the fingertips and toes. Id. at 12-13.
Dr. Bobenhouse stated that small fiber neuropathy was progressive. Tr. 16. He testified
that patients seem to get worse over time and medicines lose their efficacy. Id. Dr. Bobenhouse
stated that he believed that petitioner’s small fiber sensory neuropathy was progressive, as
medicines that were helpful at one time lost their efficacy overtime. Id. Dr. Bobenhouse
testified that prior to petitioner coming to him for treatment, the petitioner had tried gabapentin,
Lyrica, and duloxetine with little or no success. Id. Additionally, petitioner did not respond to a
course of steroids. Id. at 14. Dr. Bobenhouse started petitioner on a trial course of Topamax,
which is an anticonvulsant, that is used to treat small fiber neuropathy. Id. at 14. Petitioner
improved with Topamax initially, but then the pain seemed to worsen, so Dr. Bobenhouse started
petitioner on venlafaxine.4 Id. However, petitioner experienced some negative side effects and
was weaned from venlafaxine. Id. Petitioner ultimately returned to Topamax. Id.
When Dr. Bobenhouse reviewed petitioner’s skin biopsy on cross-examination, he
acknowledged that the pathologist’s finding was that there was “no clear pathological evidence
of a small fiber sensory neuropathy,” but he observed that the biopsy showed evidence of axonal
swelling of the small and medium-sized axons, which he stated was not “entirely normal.” Tr.
23-24; see also Pet’r Ex. 22 at 7. Additionally, Dr. Bobenhouse disagreed with Dr.
Thaisetthawatkul’s conclusion that petitioner did not have small fiber neuropathy. Id. at 24.
Dr. Bobenhouse explained that petitioner’s initial symptoms of pain in the shoulders and
hips were not necessarily directly related to petitioner’s diagnosis of small fiber sensory
neuropathy, but they were “probably…a reaction to the vaccine.” Id. at 31. He stated that the
shoulder and hip pain seemed “more of a systemic type response initially, which can occur when
a person receives a vaccination,” and was likely unrelated to petitioner’s later diagnosis of small
fiber neuropathy. Id. Petitioner began experiencing the shock-like pain in his feet in about a
week to ten days after the vaccination. Tr. 32. Then petitioner’s sensory symptoms progressed to
pain in his fingers and toes. Tr. 33. The diffuse pain petitioner described was part of the small
fiber neuropathy process. Id. at 34. Dr. Bobenhouse stated that “non-length dependent small
fiber neuropathy can be more diffuse and can cause pains in other places” with the hands and
feet being most symptomatic. Id.
Dr. Bobenhouse reviewed petitioner’s physical therapy notes from April 2015, which
would have been approximately one-month post-vaccination, when petitioner reported shooting
pains in his legs at night. Tr. 42; see also Pet’r Ex. 69 at 2. Dr. Bobenhouse testified that the
description of shooting pain was consistent with neuropathic pain. Id. In addition, petitioner
complained of tingling and increased coldness in his feet. Id. He also observed that the physical
4 Venlafaxine-a serotonin and norepenepherine receptor inhibitor with a brand name of Effexor.
11

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 12 of 47
therapy records also recorded that petitioner had numbness in a “glove-stocking distribution” in
the hands and feet. Id.
In addition to the pain, petitioner’s complaints of the sensation of “severe cold” on the
dorsal surface of his feet contributed to the small fiber neuropathy diagnosis. Id. at 35. Dr.
Bobenhouse explained that nerve fibers can detect pain and temperature, and when those nerves
become damaged, the nerves give the wrong signal. Id. at 36. This results in an altered
sensation “not only for pinprick, but also for cold and warm.” Id. Frequently patients will
complain of burning, but also can complain of a feeling of coldness in the feet. Id. When
reviewing the petitioner’s QST testing, which showed that petitioner was in the 98th percentile
for vibration and 99th percentile for heat and cold thresholds, Dr. Bobenhouse explained that
someone in the 98th and 99th percentile for heat and cold thresholds means “that it takes that
much effort to feel that sensation, so it’s an increased threshold to cause the cold or warm
feeling.” Id. Dr. Bobenhouse stated that the C fibers and A-delta fibers detect temperatures and
pain, and if there is an impairment when those fibers are damaged, aberrant signals are being sent
to the brain which would decrease the sensitivity for those modalities. Id. at 37. He explained
that the disruption or abnormal signal from the nerve fibers to the brain can give rise to the
decreased sensitivity to heat or cold temperatures. Id. He also explained that a person in this
category can have altered sensations of hot and cold causing him to experience burning or
extreme cold sensations particularly in the feet and hands. Tr. 36
When asked if he had considered ordering another skin biopsy, Dr. Bobenhouse
explained that he did not feel like another biopsy would be beneficial because the first one
petitioner had was inconclusive and the biopsies “have a low yield as far as determining the
etiology for small fiber neuropathy.” Tr. 38. He testified that “if the work-up has already been
done, then I just [did not] feel like it was necessary to do another biopsy.” Id. Dr. Bobenhouse
also stated that the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy can be done clinically without the
confirmation from a skin biopsy. He said ultimately, he is trying to treat the symptoms which
were consistent with small fiber neuropathy. Id.
He agreed with the definition of dysesthesias a type of chronic nerve disorder that can
cause prickling, burning, stabbing, ice cold and/or electrical sensations and can affect the arms,
hands, legs and/or feet. Id. Dr. Bobenhouse stated that at the time that petitioner came to him in
2018, he had been suffering with dysesthesias. He said that the dysesthesias that petitioner was
experiencing were caused by small fiber neuropathy Tr. 41
b. Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne
1. Petitioner’s diagnosis
Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne submitted three expert reports and testified at the entitlement
hearing. Pet’r Exs. 30, 45, & 63. Dr. Kinsbourne opined that after receiving the Twinrix
vaccination on March 18, 2015, petitioner developed an autoimmune disorder with the clinical
picture of neuropathic pain, paresthesias, and sensory deficits for temperature and fatigue most
consistent with non-length dependent small fiber neuropathy. Pet’r Ex. 30 at 4; Tr. 48.
12

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 13 of 47
Dr. Kinsbourne explained that “small fiber neuropathy is a disorder of small somatic
nerve fibers and often also autonomic nerve fibers. Small nerve fibers include lightly myelinated
A-delta fibers and unmyelinated C fibers, which innervate the skin.” Pet’r Ex. 30 at 4. A-delta
fibers, which are lightly myelinated, mediate fast stabbing pain and light touch, while C fibers
mediate slow, burning pain and the ability to appreciate pinprick and hot and cold temperatures.
Pet’r Ex. 45 at 2. The article by Hovaguimian and Gibbons states that “Small fiber neuropathy
manifests in a variety of different diseases and often results in symptoms of burning pain,
shooting pain, allodynia, and hyperesthesia.” Pet’r Ex. 66.5 The authors explain that “most
small fiber neuropathies occur in a length dependent fashion, resulting in loss of function in a
stocking-glove distribution in the lower extremities….In rare cases, a non-length dependent
neuropathy results in symptoms involving the trunk, face, proximal limbs, or other focal areas.”
Id. at 1. Severe symptoms of small fiber neuropathy may include burning pain and many
patients also report “transient electric shock-like pain, usually lasting only seconds, but quite
severe and potentially multiple times a day.” Id. at 2.
An article by Tavee and Zhou explains that in patients with small fiber neuropathy,
findings on neurologic examination, nerve conduction studies, and electromyography are normal,
although some show signs of mild distal sensory loss on physical examination. Pet’r Ex. 57 at
1.6 The damage or loss of small somatic nerve fibers results in pain, burning, tingling, or
numbness that typically affects the limbs in a distal-to-proximal gradient. Id. at 2. The authors
indicated that “the most bothersome and fairly typical symptom is burning pain in the feet that
extends proximally in a stocking-glove distribution and is often accompanied by stabbing or
aching pains, electric shock-like or pins-and-needles sensations.” Id. at 2. The symptoms
usually are worse at night and often affect sleep. Id.
Dr. Kinsbourne testified that petitioner’s initial joint pains following vaccination was
consistent with a severe vaccine reaction. Tr. 50. He stated that “the joint pain is a well know,
severe but transitory adverse effect of multiple vaccinations.” Id. Dr. Kinsbourne explained that
when petitioner was first hospitalized on March 27, 2015, his C-reactive protein level increased
to 2.6 from 0.3, and his liver function tests, specifically AST went up to 369 and the ALT level
was 368, which were all consistent with an inflammatory response to the vaccine. Tr. 55. He
also observed that petitioner’s medical records were negative for joint swelling, rash, chills or
fever, which would indicate that there was “no active infection” but that petitioner was
experiencing polyarthralgia and severe fatigue, which was most suggestive of an autoimmune
process. Tr. 56.
Dr. Kinsbourne testified that when petitioner was reporting feeling hot constantly and
tingling in his feet, along with increased coldness, it was the beginning of petitioner’s small fiber
neuropathy. Tr. 58. He stated that petitioner’s whole body hurting “isn’t classical for length-
dependent neuropathy, but the feet tingling constantly with increased coldness is exactly what
[one] would expect.” Id. Additionally, petitioner’s reports of shooting pains are also consistent
5 Alexandra Hovaguimian, Diagnosis and Treatment of Pain in Small Fiber Neuropathy, 15(3) Curr. Pain Headache
Rep., 193-200 (2011). [Pet’r Ex. 66].
6 Jinny Tavee & Lan Zhou, Small Fiber Neuropathy: A burning problem, 76 Cleveland Clinic J. of Med. 297-305
(2009). [Pet’r Ex. 57].
13

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 14 of 47
with neuropathic pain. Tr. 59. Dr. Kinsbourne observed that treating physician, Dr. Nair, ruled
out acute demyelinating polyradiculopathy or GBS, a long fiber neuropathy, because petitioner’s
strength and reflexes were preserved. Tr. 62. This is important because “it was the small fibers
that were involved throughout.” Id. Additionally, petitioner’s treating rheumatologist ruled out
rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematous. Id. at 63; see also Pet’r Ex. 16 at 1-4.
Dr. Kinsbourne also observed that petitioner’s MRI of his cervical spine was normal and
his EMG/NCS study also showed normal nerve conduction of both motor and sensory nerves.
Tr. 65. Dr. Kinsbourne stated that “we have a neuropathy which affirmatively is not a long fiber
disease like Guillain-Barré…[petitioner] has normal EMG and conduction…which is quite
consistent with small fiber neuropathy.” Tr. 65. Dr. Kinsbourne explained that “nerve
conduction studies and electromyography” are normal in patients with small fiber neuropathy.
Pet’r Ex. 30 at 5.
Dr. Kinsbourne testified that as petitioner’s disease progressed, his arthralgias and myalgias were
no longer present, however, he still complained of “paresthesias and decreased sensation to light
touch, cold sensation and hot sensation in a stocking-glove distribution affecting his hands to his
elbows bilaterally and affecting his feet and toes up to his knees.” Tr. 69. Dr. Kinsbourne stated
that this was “classical small fiber neuropathy.” Id. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that petitioner also
had some symptoms in his hips and shoulders, which symptoms are at times described by
patients with non-length dependent small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 79. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that
petitioner’s symptoms of tingling, pins and needles, and sharp-electric shock pains are consistent
with what was described in the Hovaguimian article. Tr. 81
The Hovaguimian article explained when diagnosing a patient with small fiber
neuropathy, “The history and physical examination findings are still considered the gold standard
against which all tests are compared when making a diagnosis of small fiber
neuropathy….Generally, if a patient presents with a compelling history for a small fiber
neuropathy and an appropriate clinical exam, further testing to confirm the diagnosis may be
unnecessary.” Pet’r Ex. 66 at 3; Tr. 81. The article also stated that patients with small fiber
neuropathy may present with decreased pinprick, decreased thermal sensation, or hyperalgesia in
the affected regions. Pet’r Ex. 66 at 2. Quantitative sensory testing (“QST”) can assist in the
diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy by providing a threshold for detection of thermal sensation,
thermal pain, and vibratory sensation. Id. Dr. Kinsbourne noted that petitioner had elevated
cooling and heat-pain thresholds, which are signals of “deficits for temperature.” Pet’r Ex. 45 at
2; Tr. 89. An article by Uceyler et al., filed by respondent, also illustrated that patients with
small fiber neuropathy have elevated thresholds for cold, warmth, and temperature changes
compared to non-SFN patients. Resp. Ex. A, Tab 7 at 3.7 In that study, 20 of 22 patients had
elevated detection thresholds for all three small fiber functions, cold, warmth and temperature
changes. Tr. 97. Dr. Kinsbourne emphasized that petitioner had a positive QST test, meaning
that he also experienced higher thresholds for cold and heat. Tr. 98; see also Pet’r Ex. 25 at 2.
Dr. Kinsbourne testified that the Uceyler article stated, “In the current diagnostic criteria for
7 N. Uceyler et al., Elevated Proinflammatory Cytokine Expression in Affected Skin in Small Fiber Neuropathy, 74
Neuro. 1806-13 (2017). [Resp. Ex. A, Tab 7].
14

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 15 of 47
SFN, length-dependent and non-length dependent SFN are not considered separately.” He
testified that in petitioner had elements of both. Tr. 96.
Dr. Kinsbourne stated that the finding of “some small and medium sized axonal
swelling,” in petitioner’s right distal leg sample was not inconsistent with a diagnosis of small
fiber neuropathy. Pet’r Ex. 30 at 4-5. He referenced the Lauria et al. article which states that,
“Different studies showed that in some patients, despite persisting positive sensory symptoms,
intraepidermal nerve fibers at the distal leg were within normal values.” Pet’r Ex. 53 at 1.8
Lauria assessed the swelling ratio of intraepidermal nerve fibers to the innervation density in a
follow-up skin biopsy in patients with painful neuropathy to determine whether axonal swelling
was predictive of decreased nerve fiber density. Id. The authors found that four of their patients
that had persistent burning feet, but a normal IENF density at the first examination, also had
increased swelling ratio, but had decreased epidermal innervation density at follow-up. Id. at 5.
The authors wrote, “The hypothesis that diffuse swellings might represent early evidence of
IENF axonopathy was supported by the results of follow-up examination. In fact, all patients
showed a decrease in epidermal innervation density at the distal leg, suggesting that swellings
preceded the eventual loss of IENF.” Id. at 5. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that “this is exactly what
we think was going on at the time of [petitioner’s] biopsy.” Tr. 87. Further, the article by Dr.
Anne Louise Oaklander stated that while skin biopsies can confirm a diagnosis of small fiber
neuropathy, “many laboratories use nonrepresentative or unpublished norms, which leads to
inaccurate interpretations because of variability between laboratory methods and reference
populations.” Pet’r Ex. 67 at 69; Pet’r Ex. 63 at 2. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that the biggest
problem with skin biopsies, according to the Oaklander article, is false negatives, and stated that
it may be the case with petitioner’s biopsy. Tr. 94. He testified that there can be “a clear onset
of symptoms of small fiber neuropathy and have nothing visible yet for a time…and only after a
lapse of time do the fibers begin to degenerate and then fall out completely.” Tr. 95.
Additionally, Dr. Kinsbourne testified on cross-examination that even though Dr.
Thaisetthawtkul’s interpretation of petitioner’s skin biopsy did not confirm the diagnosis of small
fiber neuropathy, “many of [Dr. Thaisetthawtkul’s] colleagues would not agree that that you
can’t have small fiber neuropathy unless you have a positive fiber count.” Tr. 113. As
respondent’s counsel noted, the Hovaguimian article states:
The history and physical examination findings are still considered the gold standard
against which all tests are compared when making a diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy.
A detailed review of the symptoms, rate of progression, and complaints suggestive of
autonomic fiber involvement is necessary. Generally, if a patient presents with a
compelling history for a small neuropathy and an appropriate clinical exam, further
testing to confirm the diagnosis may be unnecessary.
8 G. Lauria, et al., Axonal Swellings Predict the Degeneration of Epidermal Nerve Fibers in Painful Neuropathies,
61 Neuro., 631-36 (2003). [Pet’r Ex. 53].
9 Oaklander, A. & Nolano, M., Scientific Advances In and Clinical Approaches to Small-Fiber Polyneuropathy,
JAMA Neurol., doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2917 (2019). [Pet’r Ex. 67].
15

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 16 of 47
Pet’r Ex. 66 at 3; Tr. 116. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that he disagreed with Dr. Thaisetthawtkul’s
assessment because he only looked at a single test and Dr. Kinsbourne opined that Dr.
Thaisettawtkul’s conclusion was an “overreach.” Tr. 114.
In addition to meeting the diagnostic criteria, Dr. Kinsbourne stated that petitioner had no
other competing diagnosis to explain his condition, petitioner’s treating physicians also
diagnosed him with small fiber neuropathy, and that he was being treated with neuropathic pain
medication, consistent with small fiber neuropathy. Pet’r Ex. 45 at 1-5. He noted that Dr.
Bobenhouse diagnosed petitioner with “diffuse arm and leg paresthesias/dysesthesias, suspect
secondary to small fiber sensory neuropathy in association with the hepatitis vaccine.” Pet’r Ex.
43 at 3. Even earlier in petitioner’s medical course, rheumatologist, Dr. Chatwell considered the
diagnosis of “sensory neuropathy,” which would be consistent with small fiber neuropathy. Pet’r
Ex. 30 at 2; see also Pet’r Ex. 8 at 7. Dr. Kinsbourne stated that despite the skin biopsy not
being definitive, petitioner’s sensory deficits in appreciating temperature, neuropathic pain, and
paresthesias is “characteristic of non-length dependent small fiber neuropathy.” Pet’r Ex. 30 at
4. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that the Devigili article, referenced by Dr. Chaudry, demonstrated
that 12% of the studied SFN patients were diagnosed by abnormal clinical findings and abnormal
QST testing without abnormal skin biopsies and that only 7.5% of patients had abnormal results
in all three categories. Tr. 89; Resp’t Ex. B, Tab 3 at 9.10 Dr. Kinsbourne testified that petitioner
had both abnormal clinical findings and abnormal QST testing, which fits into the diagnostic
criteria for small fiber neuropathy as postulated by the Devigili article. Tr. 90. Dr. Kinsbourne
stated that Devigili also explains that abnormal skin biopsy results that show reduced nerve fiber
density does not readily explain neuropathic pain. Tr. 90-92. Dr. Kinsbourne also noted that
Devilgili authors were unable to establish a significant correlation between nerve fiber density in
the lower limbs and the intensity of neuropathic pain because it appears that the cause of pain is
not the absence of fibers, but instead the impairment and degeneration of the nerve fibers causing
them to “discharge inappropriately.” Tr. 89-90; see also Resp’t Ex. B, Tab 3 at 12.
2. Vaccine causation
Dr. Kinsbourne opined that the Twinrix vaccine that petitioner received on March 18,
2015, was the cause of his small fiber neuropathy. Pet’r Ex. 30, 45, 63; Tr. 105. Dr. Kinsbourne
wrote that small fiber neuropathy is similar to Guillain Barré syndrome, which is an immune-
mediated disease. Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6; Tr. 101. He acknowledged that there is limited medical
literature describing the exact mechanism for the cause of small fiber neuropathy, as it is a rare
condition. Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6. However, he also observed that the medical literature indicates that
small nerve fibers are “often implicated in GBS,” which “creates the presumption that long-fiber
GBS and short-fiber small fiber neuropathy are related in their mechanism of causation,” albeit,
not fully understood. Id. Dr. Kinsbourne stated that small fiber neuropathy is an autoimmune
disorder, which suggests that there is a diversity of causes for disease, much like GBS. Tr. 103;
Pet’r Ex. 30 at 5-8. He stated that because GBS is a “well-known immune-mediated condition
that is sometimes caused or triggered by vaccination,” and that “autonomic and small fiber
neuropathies are often features of GBS…this is evidence that small fiber neuropathy can also be
an element of an autoimmune neurological disorder.” Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6.
10 Devigili, G. et al., The Diagnostic Criteria for Small Fibre Neuropathy: From Symptoms to Neuropathology, 131
Brain, 1912-1925 (2008). [Resp’t Ex. B, Tab 3].
16

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 17 of 47
Dr. Kinsbourne proposed that the Twinrix vaccine (hepatitis A and B) caused petitioner’s
small fiber neuropathy through molecular mimicry. Tr. 94; Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6. In his first report,
Dr. Kinsbourne wrote that because “small nerve fibers are implicated in GBS, [this] creates the
presumption that long-fiber GBS and short-fiber small fiber neuropathy are related in their
mechanism of causation.” Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6. He noted that the Oaklander article states that,
“Most early-onset SFN is not genetic, but rather appears inflammatory, involving autoreactive B
cells.” Tr. 93; Pet’r Ex. 67 at 6. The same article also implicates molecular mimicry as a cause
of SFN after an HPV vaccination or infection. Pet’r Ex. 67 at 6; Tr. 93. Oaklander explained
that with inflammatory small fiber neuropathy that is not associated with a systemic
inflammatory disease, it is likely that the autoreactive B cells are using either the classic or lectin
pathways of the complement system to cause damage to the small fibers. Pet’r Ex. 67 at 8. The
Oaklander article also stated, “We and others have proposed the existence of small fiber
targeting inflammatory small fiber neuropathy with acute and chronic presentations temporally
resembling Guillain Barré syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.”
Id.
Dr. Kinsbourne referred to an article by Seneviratne and Gunasekera, which reported on
six patients who fit the diagnosis of “pure sensory variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome with both
clinical and electrophysiological features suggestive of small fiber neuropathy.” Pet’r Ex. 61.11
The authors described the six patients as having presented with “acute onset of numbness of the
upper and lower limbs,” with four having “associated burning dysesthesias in the limbs.” Id. at
1. None of those patients had muscle weakness, but all had albuminocytological dissociation in
CSF, suggestive of GBS. Id. The authors concluded that these six patients had small fiber
sensory neuropathy because there was selective involvement of small diameter sensory fibers
with the relative sparing of the large, myelinated nerve fibers. Id. at 3. The authors wrote,
“Small fiber involvement in GBS has been shown in a postmortem study, although not in
isolation. There is evidence that in peripheral neuropathies, functionally different small fiber
systems are affected independently, and selective involvement of different small fiber types is
frequent. This study theorizes that in Guillain-Barre syndrome small sensory fibers are a possible
target for selective damage by antibodies.” Id. at 3. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that the
Seneviratne study suggests that small sensory fibers are a possible target for selective damage by
antibodies both in GBS, but also independently outside of GBS. Tr. 105.
Dr. Kinsbourne also referred to the Martinez et al. article, which investigated the role of
small fiber dysfunction in acute neuropathic pain in patients with GBS, to demonstrate that small
fibers can also be a target for autoimmune attacks by autoantigens, similar to how large fibers are
targeted in GBS. Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6; Tr. 100-01; Pet’r Ex. 71.12 Martinez stated that “acute
neuropathy of GBS not only affects large-myelinated fibers, but also impairs small myelinated
and unmyelinated fibers. Small fiber dysfunction seems to be at least partially responsible for
neuropathic pain in chronic sensory polyneuropathies…” Pet’r Ex. 71 at 1. Additionally, the
11 U. Seneviratne & S. Gunasekera, Acute Small Fiber Sensory Neuropathy: Another Variant of Guillain-Barre
Syndrome? 72 J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 540-42 (2007). [Pet’r Ex. 61].
12 Valeria Martinez et al., Small Fibre Impairment Predicts Neuropathic Pain in Guillain-Barre Syndrome, 151
Pain, 53-60 (2010). [Pet’r Ex. 71].
17

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 18 of 47
authors wrote, “GBS is generally considered to be an acute inflammatory neuropathy that most
frequently affects large-diameter fibers. However, a recent study based on skin punch biopsy
found reduced values for intraepidermal nerve fiber density in GBS patients with a
demyelinating form of the disease that was correlated with abnormal thresholds for warm
stimuli, indicating that small fiber neuropathy is also an important manifestation of GBS.” Id. at
5. Further, they found that small fiber dysfunction was evidenced using quantitative sensory
testing which showed impaired detection and pain thresholds for heat and cold stimuli in the
foot. Id. The authors stated, “[This] data, which are in line with previous observations, adds to a
growing body of evidence that acute neuropathy in GBS is not only restricted to large or medium
motor or sensory fibers, but also affects small nociceptive fibers to a similar extent.” Id. Dr.
Kinsbourne testified that the Martinez article suggests that “whatever GBS can be triggered by,”
can also trigger small fiber neuropathy because it is an autoimmune disorder. Tr. 103.
Dr. Kinsbourne opined that the onset of petitioner’s initial small fiber neuropathy
symptoms was approximately eight days post-vaccination, which is an appropriate timeframe for
vaccine-induced autoimmune inflammatory disease, such as small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 98. In
the Seneviratne article, four out of the six small fiber neuropathy patients reported a preceding
illness that occurred three days to 1.5 months before onset of the first symptoms of their disease.
Pet’r Ex. 61 at 1. One patient reported having a gastrointestinal illness three weeks before onset
of initial symptoms, while another had a urinary tract infection one week prior to the onset of the
numbness and burning sensations in the feet. Id. Further, Dr. Gobbo, one of petitioner’s treating
physicians, noted the temporal association between the onset of petitioner’s symptoms and the
Twinrix vaccine, stating, “The temporal relation of [petitioner’s] symptoms, especially the
fatigue and arthralgias, shortly after the Twinrix vaccination, suggests an idiosyncratic reaction
to the vaccine as the most likely cause of his problems.” Pet’r Ex. 18 at 1.
Dr. Kinsbourne further observed that many of petitioner’s treating physicians also
attributed the onset of petitioner’s symptoms to his receiving the Twinrix vaccine. When
petitioner was initially hospitalized on March 27, 2015, Dr. Gobbo’s impression was that
petitioner had a “vaccine reaction to the Twinrix causing a serum-sickness type reaction which
manifests mainly as polyarthralgia and severe fatigue.” Pet’r Ex. 7 at 3. When petitioner was
hospitalized from April 7-8, 2015, rheumatologist, Dr. Chatwell assessed petitioner with
“migratory severe polyarthralgia” and wrote, “Differential diagnosis includes a reactive
phenomenon such as a post-vaccination? Or post viral etiology. The patient lacks fevers or skin
rash to suggest adult-onset of Still disease and his current clinical presentation is not suggestive
of a rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematous, etc. No obvious preceding infection has
been defined.” Pet’r Ex. 8 at 7. Dr. Chatwell also considered “sensory neuropathy” as a
diagnosis for petitioner. Id. After petitioner’s April 2015 hospitalization, Dr. Gobbo wrote, “At
this point, there is no obvious infectious cause or contributor to [petitioner’s] symptoms.
Adverse vaccine reaction remains the most plausible cause, though I would still wonder about
possible seronegative type of autoimmune disease.” Pet’r Ex. 18 at 20. One year later, March
29, 2016, Dr. Bertolini diagnosed petitioner with “Post-hepatitis A and B vaccine reaction with
persistent numbness and tingling of his arms and legs with stocking glove distribution bilaterally
of legs, arms, hands, and feet.” Pet’r Ex. 14 at 19.
18

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 19 of 47
During cross-examination, Dr. Kinsbourne also observed that petitioner did not have any
underlying other conditions that could have given rise to small fiber neuropathy, such as
diabetes, vasculitis, lupus or Sjogren’s syndrome. Tr. 118-19. He acknowledged that none of
petitioner’s treating physicians came to a “firm” conclusion that petitioner had small fiber
neuropathy, but “they all concluded the vaccine caused,” something in petitioner. Id. at 120.
In summary, Dr. Kinsbourne opined that petitioner’s small fiber neuropathy was caused
by the Twinrix vaccine petitioner received. He stated that “no viable competing diagnoses have
been proposed, the temporal period from vaccine to onset is appropriate and no alternative
causation is in evidence.” Pet. Ex. 45 at 5; Tr. 104-05.
c. Respondent’s expert, Dr. Vinay Chaudhry
1. Petitioner’s diagnosis
Dr. Chaudhry opined that petitioner did not have small fiber neuropathy or any form of
peripheral neuropathy. Resp. Ex. A at 7; Resp. Ex. B at 6; Tr. 187.
In his first report, Dr. Chaudry stated that he did not believe that petitioner’s symptoms
could be explained by a neurologic or neuromuscular condition because: a) petitioner’s
symptoms were inconsistent with peripheral neuropathy; b) petitioner had normal neurological
examinations; c) petitioner had normal EMG/NCS studies; d) petitioner’s skin biopsy revealed
normal fiber density; e) petitioner had a normal autonomic function test assessed by Quantitative
sudomotor axons reflex test (“QSART”); and f) none of petitioner’s treating neurologists
diagnosed petitioner with peripheral neuropathy. Resp. Ex. A at 6-7. Dr. Chaudry also wrote a
second expert report, after petitioner had filed additional records from Dr. Bobenhouse and
updated records from Dr. Gobo. Resp. Ex. B. After reviewing petitioner’s updated records, Dr.
Chaudry explained that his opinion regarding petitioner’s diagnosis was not changed. Id. at 6.
He stated that Dr. Bobenhouse’s assessment of petitioner included “several inconsistencies,” and
that Dr. Bobenhouse’s diagnosis of “suspected small fiber neuropathy,” was not supported by the
history, examination findings of petitioner, or the EMG/NCS. Id.
With respect to petitioner’s presenting symptoms, Dr. Chaudry opined that petitioner’s
initial complaints of myalgias in his shoulders and arthralgias of the hip joints, in addition to
petitioner having no sensory deficits, on March 25, 2016, are inconsistent with any type of
neuropathy. Tr. 132; Resp. Ex. A at 6. He stated that petitioner’s symptom complaints in the
emergency department on March 26th are also unrelated to neuropathy. Tr. 133. Dr. Chaudry
testified that in the record on March 26th that there was “no mention of sensory loss, no mention
of the paresthesias, the tingling, the numbness, the burning that you see in small fiber
neuropathy….no one even raised that possibility.” Id.
Dr. Chaudry testified that when petitioner sought treatment with Dr. Bertolini on April 3,
2015, he was endorsing some neuropathic symptoms, including bilateral paresthesias, but that
those symptoms were “difficult to dissect out,” because he was presenting with other symptoms
such as bilateral hip and shoulder pain. Tr. 137. Additionally, Dr. Chaudry argued that Dr.
Bertolini’s sensory examination did not show any abnormalities. Id. Dr. Chaudry stated, “…the
19

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 20 of 47
fact that [petitioner’s] symptoms are more related to the joint pains, the fact that there’s no
sensory deficit on examination, that suggests that there was no significant neuropathy, at least at
this stage.” Tr. 138. Dr. Chaudry acknowledged that petitioner reported “tingling in his feet” at
the April 3, 2015 appointment, however, he downplayed the relevance of tingling by
characterizing them as “nonspecific,” and not supported by the sensory examination. Id.
Additionally, Dr. Chaudry argued that when petitioner was first evaluated by a
neurologist, Dr. Nair, on April 7, 2015, the consultation was for “polyarthralgia and fatigue post-
vaccination,” which are not symptoms of neuropathy. Tr. 139; see Pet’r Ex. 9 at 1. At this
appointment, petitioner’s sensory examination noted that he had some abnormalities to
perceiving pinprick over the dorsum of the hands, distal forearms, and the dorsum of his feet and
he had decreased sensation to vibration over his knuckles and toes. Pet’r Ex. 9 at 2. Dr.
Chaudry stated that the examination “appears to show patchy sensation loss to pin[prick] over
the dorsum of the hands, forearms, and feet, and the vibration was diminished,” but that these
sensory deficits “are not part of small fiber neuropathies.” Tr. 140. He testified that vibration
sense loss is not part of small fiber neuropathy and that loss of pinprick sensation in the pattern
on petitioner’s knuckles and toes was “not typical for small fiber neuropathy.” Id. He testified
that “small fiber neuropathy has different sizes [of nerves affected] small, medium, and large and
the larger ones are more motor controlling and vibration controlling, whereas the smaller ones
control more burning, tingling sensation and pinprick, and temperature sensibility.” Tr. 141. He
stated that a finding of reduced pinprick and vibration sensation is not part of small fiber
modality. Id.
When Dr. Chaudry reviewed petitioner’s appointment from April 17, 2015 with Dr.
Bertolini, he skipped over the rather detailed “History of Present Illness” in the medical record,
which stated that petitioner had temperature changes in his skin, in addition to “problems with
numbness of his arms and legs.” Pet’r Ex. 14 at 91. The physical examination from this
appointment demonstrated that petitioner had “some numbness of his arms and hands,” and
“numbness of his distal legs, anterior calf area bilaterally.” Id. at 93. Dr. Chaudry did not
mention these notations from Dr. Bertolini, nor did he acknowledge that Dr. Bertolini added
“disturbance of skin sensation” to petitioner’s list of diagnoses. See Pet’r Ex. 14 at 94. Dr.
Bertolini diagnosed petitioner with, “Problems with poly-arthralgias and numbness with
paresthesia of his upper and lower extremities with severe fatigue secondary to reaction from
hepatitis A and B vaccine.” Id.
Dr. Chaudry then discussed petitioner’s appointment with neurologist Dr. Sundell on
May 1, 2015, and stated, “[Petitioner’s] reflexes are intact. [Dr. Sundell] says that there is
diminished pinprick on the dorsal surface of the forearm. This is not now on the wrist as it was
before, and diminished pinprick on the volar surface. He feels fairly well, but vibration was
better than before, but I guess it was still reduced.” Tr. 142. The note from the actual medical
record provides that petitioner had diminished pinprick on the dorsal surface of his forearm, but
“on the volar surface he feels this fairly well.” Pet’r Ex. 24 at 1. Dr. Chaudry notes that Dr.
Sundell wrote that he “cannot find a definite neurological cause for his subjective sensory
symptoms,” and pointed to this as evidence that petitioner was not suffering from peripheral
neuropathy. Resp. Ex. A at 7; Tr. 142.
20

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 21 of 47
When Dr. Chaudry reviewed petitioner’s medical record from September 4, 2015,
another appointment with Dr. Bertolini, he acknowledged that petitioner’s sensory symptoms of
“paresthesias and decreased sensation to light touch, cold sensation, and hot sensation
diminished in a stocking glove distribution affecting his hands to his elbow bilaterally and
affecting his feet and toes up to his knees,” are consistent with small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 144;
see also Pet’r Ex. 14 at 57. He also stated that petitioner’s sensory examination, which showed
“abnormal sensation to light touch; decreased sensation to light touch and pinprick at the hands
and feet in a stocking glove pattern,” is also consistent with small fiber neuropathy. Dr. Chaudry
argued that at the appointment on March 29, 2016, however, petitioner’s reports of pain are only
in the joints, like the wrist and arm, are “not the typical pain you would see for a small fiber
neuropathy patient, which is more burning, tingling, don’t allow anyone to touch.” Tr. 145. He
also stated that petitioner’s examination only showed decreased sensation to light touch in his
lower extremities and “there’s no mention of the pinprick loss in the lower extremities.” Id. He
stated petitioner’s examination was “not showing the typical, stocking [distribution].” Id. In Dr.
Chaudry’s opinion, this is additional evidence that petitioner did not have small fiber neuropathy.
However, he failed to include Dr. Bertolini’s assessment of petitioner from the March 29, 2016
appointment which provided, “Post-hepatitis A and B vaccine reaction with persistent numbness
and tingling of his arm and legs with stocking glove distribution of legs, arms, hands, and feet.”
Pet’r Ex. 14 at 17 (emphasis added).
Dr. Chaudry testified that petitioner’s normal QSART test, performed by neurologist, Dr.
Thai, excludes large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, and autonomic neuropathy. Resp.
Ex. A at 7; Tr. 148-50. He stated that petitioner’s heart rate response to deep breathing and
Valsalva, blood pressure and heart rate response to a 70-degree tilt were all normal. Resp. Ex. A
at 7; Tr. 147. Additionally, petitioner’s QSART showed normal sweat output at the left forearm,
leg, and foot. See Pet’r Ex. 25 at 2. Dr. Chaudry stated that the autonomic fibers are all small
fibers and the results of the QSART test confirm that petitioner did not have any small fiber
disturbances. Tr. 150. While Dr. Chaudry acknowledged that petitioner’s QST test showed
“mixed short elevated vibratory cooling and heat pain thresholds, he asserted that these findings
were “non-specific,” and that the QST test is not an objective test, and there is a degree of
subjectivity. Tr. 148. Furthermore, Dr. Chaudry testified that even with the QST test showing
“elevated vibratory, cooling, and heat-pain thresholds,” Dr. Thai “did not think that [the QST
testing results] was significant.” Tr. 149. Dr. Chaudry agreed with Dr. Thaisetthawatkul’s
assessment that “there [was] no evidence from electrophysiological studies to indicate a
neuromuscular cause for [petitioner’s] symptoms.” Tr. 150.
After concluding that there was no evidence of large fiber neuropathy, Dr.
Thaisetthawakul ordered a skin biopsy. Pet’r Ex. 25 at 2. Dr. Chaudry opined that petitioner’s
skin biopsy was normal and showed “no clear pathological evidence of small fiber neuropathy.”
Tr. 153. He stated that petitioner’s skin biopsy showed normal epidermal fiber densities at 11.1,
with the lower limit of normal being 5.2 fibers per millimeter. Tr. 151. He also stated that
petitioner’s epidermal fiber at the right proximal thigh was also normal, at 28.3, with normal
being more than 8 per millimeter. Id.; see also Pet’r Ex. 22 at 7. Dr. Chaudhry testified that
“there was no meaning” to the finding of “small and medium axonal swelling.” Tr. 152. He
stated that, “If there was any meaning to that, Dr. Herrmann [pathologist] would put that in his
report.” Id. Dr. Chaudry also stated that if petitioner had non-length dependent neuropathy, then
21

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 22 of 47
the small-and medium sized axonal swelling finding would have been present in both skin
samples, not just in the ankle sample. Tr. 152. He testified that Dr. Herrmann, a small fiber
expert at the University of Rochester, made a “black and white” interpretation of petitioner’s
skin biopsy, stating that there was “no clear pathologic evidence of small fiber neuropathy based
on epidermal nerve fiber densities at the distal leg and proximal thigh.” Tr. 153 (citing Pet’r Ex.
22 at 7).
Dr. Chaudry also testified as to the finding of small and medium axonal swelling on the
biopsy if the fiber density is normal, then the swelling is not something to “worry about.” Tr.
176. He stated that with skin biopsies, if the fiber density is abnormal and shows a reduction, it’s
a length dependent process. Id. If there is reduced fiber density at the lower leg and a finding of
axonal swelling in the upper thigh biopsy, then some people think it may be a precursor [of large
fiber neuropathy].” Id. He testified that Dr. Herrmann “did not make much of the swellings,”
and neither did Dr. Thaisetthawakul, and that he has no reason to “disbelieve” their
interpretation. Tr. 177.
Dr. Chaudry testified that Dr. Thaisetthawakul also interpreted petitioner’s skin biopsy
results as “normal.” Tr. 154; see Pet’r Ex. 22 at 1. Dr. Chaudry stated that there was no reason
to doubt Dr. Thaisetthawakul’s diagnosis and assessment of petitioner. Tr. 155. Dr. Chaudry
testified that four neurologists prior to Dr. Bobenhouse had provided their opinion about various
aspects of petitioner’s case. Tr. 165. He testified, “Dr. Nair, Dr. Sundell, Dr. Franco who just
did the EMG, Dr. Thai, and Dr. Herrmann who interpreted the biopsy. None of them had
questions, even though they considered [small fiber neuropathy]….But they were doing tests to
see whether they could find [small fiber neuropathy], and they ran all the way out to do QSTs, to
do autonomic testing, to do the examinations, to do skin biopsies. And yet they said no, this is
not small fiber neuropathy.” Tr. 165; see also Resp. Ex. A at 2-3.
Dr. Chaudry noted that petitioner saw Dr. Bobenhouse three years after the Twinrix
vaccination and after petitioner had seen other very highly qualified neurologists. Resp. Ex. B at
2-4. He stated that petitioner’s medical history of disorientation, weakness, headaches, pain in
the hips, knees, shoulders, and elbows are not features of small fiber neuropathy. Id. at 4; Tr.
160. Dr. Chaudry testified that petitioner’s report of weakness and diffuse pain, which worsened
with exertion was also not consistent with small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 159. He stated that “small
fiber neuropathy is not exertion-related.” Id. Again, Dr. Chaudry skipped petitioner’s reports of
“paresthesias and dysesthesias in the feet and forelegs as well as in the hands and forearms,” and
testified that petitioner’s reports of knife-like pain in his hips, knees, and shoulders are joint-
related issues not seen in small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 160. When Dr. Chaudry reviewed Dr.
Bobenhouse’s physical examination of the petitioner on May 11, 2018, he stated that the findings
of decreased sensitivity to light touch in the legs and hands are “not part of small fiber
neuropathy.” Tr. 161. He testified that petitioner’s decreased sensitivity to pinprick found in his
legs, feet, and hands, however, could be related to small fiber neuropathy. Id. Dr. Chaudry also
testified that petitioner’s reduced or absent reflexes, and the sensory level over the abdomen
below the T8 level are all “not part of small fiber neuropathy.” Tr. 162. Referencing Dr.
Bobenhouse’s assessment of petitioner, Dr. Chaudry stated:
22

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 23 of 47
….the fact of the [decreased sensitivity to] light touch, the fact that the reflexes are
absent, the fact that the sensory level is present, the fact that the common peroneal motor
response is low, the fact that the symptoms are predominantly all related to this knife-like
sensation in his hips, knees, shoulders and elbows, clearly to me…as a clinical person,
with or without the skin biopsy, does not show this is small fiber neuropathy.
Tr. 163.
Dr. Chaudry testified that the “typical symptoms” he considers related to small fiber
neuropathy as “dysesthesias or allodynia” where a patient describes the pain as superficial, or
burning. Tr. 171. Tingling or electrical shocks can also be features of small fiber neuropathy.
Id. The symptoms occur in a “somewhat length-dependent pattern,” that starts in the toes, then
goes to the middle of the foot and the sole is more affected than the dorsum of the foot. Id. Then
the symptoms move to the ankle and by the time these symptoms occur at the ankle, patients may
have similar feelings in the tips of their fingers. Id. He stated that “depending on when you see
the patient, [the symptoms] might be ascending up to…the mid-leg or up to the mid-palm.” Id.
Strength and gait are typically recorded as normal and patients do not generally have bladder or
bowel issues. Id. Dr. Chaudry testified that when examining patients with these symptoms you
use a pin and “even though they are complaining of pain, they’ll have reduced pinprick
sensibility as you move up from the toes, up to the foot to the ankle, and then it becomes normal
somewhere in the calf.” Id. Furthermore, vibration sensation is normal, because that is a “large
fiber modality,” and reflexes, joint position, and strength are normal because they are all large
fiber sensibilities. Tr. 172. He testified that one of the large fiber modalities may be abnormal
and that if someone presented with “severe burning, tingling in a length-depended fashion, has
pinprick loss, temperature distal loss, and also may have mild vibration loss, well it may be that
[the neuropathy] has progressed to more large fibers.” Id.
Dr. Chaudry was asked by the Court to explain why decreased sensation to light touch
was not part of small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 195. He testified that light touch was “carried by
different fibers” and that small fiber and a-delta only carry pinprick, warm and cold temperature,
but not light touch. Tr. 196. He also testified that the loss of vibratory sensation is also
associated with the loss of large fiber involvement and that it can occur in the context of
someone who has small fiber neuropathy that has evolved to include involvement of the large
nerve fibers. Tr. 196. He stated that if petitioner’s presentation began with “burning, tingling,
started in his feet, ascended up and over a period of time, his only abnormality was initially just
temperature. Years passed. Then it’s vibration and proprioception loss….He has nerve
conduction study abnormality….[Y]ou’d say the predominant manifestation is small fiber. Skin
biopsy is abnormal. But he also has mild vibration abnormality. That means the disease has
progressed, because some of the neuropathy…do not restrict themselves to small fibers.” Tr.
196-97. However, absent vibration in the knuckles is not something to expect without the other
typical symptomatology and with a normal skin biopsy. Tr. 197.
Dr. Chaudry testified that petitioner’s symptoms of joint pain, the fluctuations of the
sensory examinations, memory loss, dizziness and walking trouble, weakness and fatigue are all
inconsistent with small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 172. He stated, “Now, it’s said that maybe he had
two diseases. [He] had something else…in the beginning and it evolved into something else.
23

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 24 of 47
Again, I don’t know what that something else is. If you can give me that diagnosis of something
else, maybe I’ll say, can it cause this too. But clinically, as an expert asked to address whether
this is small fiber neuropathy….I can unequivocally say this is not, not in my experience….and
this is not the presentation I’ve seen.” Tr. 173. When Dr. Chaudry was asked by the Court
whether petitioner’s abnormal reflex findings later in petitioner’s course of treatment, combined
with the normal EMG finding by Dr. Bobenhouse, was consistent with the evolution of small
fiber neuropathy, Dr. Chaudry responded that he was not aware of that’s how [small fiber
neuropathy evolves.]. He stated that “you don’t just lose reflexes without strength being
abnormal….because generally large fibers are affected.” Tr. 200.
During the hearing, Dr. Chaudry was asked whether petitioner’s symptoms would be
consistent with non-length dependent SFN, as described in the Gemignani et al. article, which
studied non-length dependent SFN and assessed its features in comparison with the distal form of
SFN. Tr. 201-03. Gemignani found that “that non-length dependent SFN is under recognized in
the general population, as a consequence of its unusual presentation.” Pet’r Ex. 33 at 3. The
article noted that sensory symptom regional distribution varied from the traditional “stocking-
glove,” distribution to also included positive sensory disturbances on the chest, upper legs, and
face. Id. at 3. Dr. Chaudry said most of the patients in the Gemignani study had allodynia,
something that the petitioner did not have, and all the patients also had abnormal skin biopsies.
Tr. 203. Dr. Chaudry also stated that patients in the Gemignani article all had normal reflexes
and normal strength, and they described “normal” small fiber neuropathy symptoms, such as
burning and reported discomfort or pain to light touch. Id. Dr. Chaudry conceded that some of
petitioner’s medical records endorsed a stocking-glove distribution of sensory changes, however,
they also included joint pain, “that’s not the type of pain you’re talking about in non-length
dependent [small fiber neuropathy].” Id. He implied that it is not enough to make a diagnosis of
small fiber neuropathy based on one part of the petitioner’s presentation, but that Dr.
Thaisetthawakul looked at multiple tests and made “a very categorical statement. Surely there is
no large or small fiber neuropathy.” Id. (citing Pet’r Ex. 22 at 1).
Finally, regarding petitioner’s diagnosis, Dr. Chaudry stated that a diagnosis of small
fiber neuropathy is not made because certain medications work. Tr. 178. He testified that the
medications that petitioner had been treated with, including Lyrica, Cymbalta, and Topamax are
used to treat fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain, or joint and muscle pain. Id. He stated that
petitioner’s treating physicians were attempting to treat petitioner’s symptoms. Id. Dr. Chaudry
testified that the medications petitioner was treated with are also prescribed by rheumatologists
or orthopedists, but that does not mean the patients have small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 179. Dr.
Chaudry stated that petitioner was given several pain medications, but it has no relevance to
petitioner’s diagnosis per se. Id.
Dr. Chaudry concluded his testimony, reiterating that petitioner did not have small fiber
neuropathy in his opinion and that the treating neurologists petitioner saw prior to seeing Dr.
Bobenhouse conducted thorough evaluations of the petitioner and were unable to diagnose
petitioner with small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 192; see also Resp. Ex. B at 2. He acknowledged
that petitioner did have some type of “acute reaction with joint pains and sometimes abnormal
liver function tests and CRP,” but he could not characterize petitioner’s condition as small fiber
neuropathy. Tr. 204-05. He opined that petitioner’s condition “somewhat fit” the description of
24

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 25 of 47
fibromyalgia, based on petitioner’s predominant symptom of joint pain. Tr. 204. He stated that
arthralgias is a description of pain in the fibrous tissues around the joints. Id. But Dr. Chaudry
testified that nobody has indicated that myalgias or arthralgias are symptoms of small fiber
neuropathy. Tr. 205.
2. Vaccine causation
Dr. Chaudry opined that the Twinrix vaccine was not the cause of petitioner’s symptoms
or condition. Resp. Ex. A at 13; Tr. 180-84.
Dr. Chaundry contended that small fiber neuropathy is not an autoimmune condition, and
that small fiber neuropathy is not similar to Guillain-Barré syndrome, therefore, there is no
reliable evidence that small fiber neuropathy could be triggered by the same mechanisms as
GBS. Tr. 181; see also Resp. Ex. A at 13. He testified that GBS is an attack on the myelin
sheath and that myelin is only present on large fibers, not smaller fibers. Tr. 180. In his expert
report, Dr. Chaudry stated that the Pan article, which explored small fiber neuropathy in patients
with GBS, is irrelevant to the petitioner’s case because the petitioner did not have diagnosed
GBS. Resp. Ex. A at 12. He stated that in Pan “patients had to fulfill the diagnostic criteria of
demyelinating GBS,” and that petitioner had none of the features of GBS, including symmetrical
distal-predominant limb weakness, generalized areflexia or hyporeflexia, or electrophysiological
evidence of acquired demyelination on nerve conduction studies. Id. He also stated that the skin
biopsy of the patients from the Pan article showed “reduced epidermal nerve density, or
varicosity, or fragmented appearance,” while petitioner’s biopsy did not display those features.
Id. The Pan article explained that their results “indicate that cutaneous innervation is diminished
in acute monophasic polyneuropathy of inflammatory or immune-mediate etiology.” Pet. Ex. 39
at 12.13 Further, Pan concluded that their findings “suggest that small fiber sensory neuropathy
is also an important manifestation of GBS, and that GBS should be considered a global
neuropathy instead of a pure large-fiber neuropathy.” Id. Dr. Chaudry stated that some patients
with GBS can experience pain, but that “does not make it small fiber neuropathy.” Tr. 181.
Dr. Chaudry also stated that the Martinez article, which explored the mechanism of
neuropathic pain in GBS, was also not relevant to the case because petitioner did not have
neuropathic pain or GBS. Resp. Ex. A at 12. As discussed above, the Martinez article suggested
that small fiber neuropathy is also “an important manifestation of GBS,” and that the study,
along with others, “adds to the growing body of evidence that acute neuropathy in GBS is not
only restricted to large or medium motor and sensory fibers, but also affects nociceptive fibers to
a similar extent.” Pet’r Ex. 71 at 5. While being questioned by the Court, Dr. Chaudry conceded
that there can be “large fiber involvement…sometimes in small fiber patients,” but that is
typically paired with the typical symptomology that continues to progress over time. Tr. 196.
Dr. Chaudry testified that certain infections, including campylobacter jejuni, respiratory
tract infections, influenza, COVID infection, and hepatitis E infections, have all been associated
with GBS. Tr. 183. He stated that molecular mimicry is the “most obvious” hypothesis for how
c.jejuni can result in GBS. Id. However, he stated that “nobody has ever shown” that molecular
13 Chun-Ling Pan et al., Cutaneous innervation in Guillain-Barre syndrome: Pathology and Clinical Correlations,
126 Brain 386-97 (2003). [Pet. Ex. 39].
25

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 26 of 47
mimicry is the cause of small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 181. He testified that the “immune
hypothesis” that Dr. Kinsbourne referred to as the underlying cause of small fiber neuropathy,
was from the Oaklander article, which was focused on children, not adults. Tr. 181. He noted
that Oaklander found that “Most early-onset SFN is not genetic but rather appears to be
inflammatory, involving autoreactive B cells,” but that Professor Oakland was referring to small
fiber neuropathy in people under the age of 21. Id.; see also Pet’r Ex. 67 at 6. On review of the
article, Dr. Oaklander stated s, “Autoantibodies have been associated with dysautonomic SFN
symptoms, including POTS, and corticosteroid immunotherapy has effectively treated young
patients with rapid-onset painful SFN. Pet’r Ex. 67 at 6. The article goes on to state, “Reports of
early onset SFN after infectious exposures, particularly to human papillomavirus vaccination,
suggest potential for molecular mimicry. Autoreactive SFN also affects adults but is easiest to
diagnose in children and otherwise healthy young people without other risk factors.” Id. at 6
(emphasis added).
Dr. Chaudry also disagreed with Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory that small fiber neuropathy may
be caused by an inflammatory process. Tr 185; Resp. Ex. A at 11. In his report, Dr. Chaudry
stated that the Lacomis article “clearly notes the cause of small fiber neuropathy is rarely found
and when found, it is usually diabetes mellitus.” Resp. Ex. A at 11; see also Pet’r Ex. 35 at 10.14
Dr. Chaudry, citing Lacomis, wrote, “Idiopathic small-fiber neuropathy is the diagnosis in 93%
of the cases.” Resp. Ex. A at 11. He also wrote that the “inflammatory basis” hypothesis as a
cause of small fiber neuropathy was based on circumstantial evidence from one patient with
vasculitis, Lupus, or Sjogren’s syndrome. Id. However, Lacomis did not just examine one
patient case in whom an inflammatory or autoimmune process was considered as a cause of
small fiber neuropathy, but instead identified multiple articles where an immune-mediated
etiology had been considered. Lacomis wrote:
In some patients with idiopathic small-fiber neuropathy, an inflammatory autoimmune
basis has been hypothesized and circumstantial evidence is available. Sural nerve biopsy
specimens from 12 patients with clinical feature of small-fiber neuropathy, including
burning feet, revealed multifocal axon loss in 5 and epineurial perivascular lymphocytes
in all. This inflammation was deemed “significant” in seven.
Id. at 10 (original emphasis). Further, Lacomis cited an article by Seneviratne and Gunasekera
which reported on six patients with “acute onset of small fiber neuropathy” four of which had an
antecedent illness; an article by Giuliani et al., which identified 39 patients of small fiber
neuropathy, 15 of which had evidence suggestive of an autoimmune disposition; and Suarez et
al, which “also postulated an immune mediated mechanism in idiopathic autonomic neuropathies
that followed a viral illness.” Id.
Dr. Chaudry testified that there are no known infectious causes of small fiber neuropathy,
but the most common cause is diabetes or glucose intolerance. Tr. 184. He stated that “even a
metabolic syndrome, obesity with high triglycerides and hypertension….can also lead to small
fiber neuropathy.” Id. He also suggested that taking too much B6 could result in small fiber
neuropathy, along with other heredity conditions, but that “diabetes or glucose intolerance,” are
the most likely known causes. Tr. 185. However, he acknowledged that in about 90 percent of
14 Lacomis, David, Small-Fiber Neuropathy, 26 Muscle Nerve 173-188 (2002). [Pet’r Ex. 35].
26

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 27 of 47
cases no cause of small fiber neuropathy was found and labeled as “idiopathic.” Id. Dr. Chaudry
stated that he was not aware of hepatitis A or B infection being associated with small fiber
neuropathy. Id. He also testified there was no known association between the hepatitis B
vaccine and GBS. Tr. 195. He acknowledged that “there may be case reports, but it’s not one of
the associated links.” Id.
Dr. Chaudry testified that if petitioner had an autoimmune condition that was caused by a
vaccine, the onset eight days after vaccination would be an acceptable timeframe. Tr. 188. Dr.
Chaudry asserted that petitioner was not exhibiting any symptoms of small fiber neuropathy
eight days after vaccination. Id. However, he acknowledged that petitioner became “much more
functionally disabled after the vaccine.” Tr. 208.
IV. Applicable Law
The Vaccine Act was established to compensate vaccine-related injuries and deaths.
Section 10(a). “Congress designed the Vaccine Program to supplement the state law civil tort
system as a simple, fair and expeditious means for compensating vaccine-related injured persons.
The Program was established to award ‘vaccine-injured persons quickly, easily, and with
certainty and generosity.’” Rooks v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 1, 7 (1996)
(quoting H.R. No. 908 at 3, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6287, 6344).
A petitioner bears the burden of establishing his or her entitlement to compensation from
the Vaccine Program. The burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Section
13(a)(1).
A. Nature of Injury
The Federal Circuit established the test for actual causation of an off-Table injury in
Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. In that case: “There was no dispute as to whether the petitioner,
Margaret Althen, actually suffered from a central nervous system demyelinating disorder.
Therefore, the Federal Circuit was not presented with a case in which the diagnosis itself was
questioned, but one in which causation of the injury by the vaccine was the issue in dispute.”
Doe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 94 Fed. Cl. 597, 611 (2010) (citing Althen, 418 F.3d at
1282), aff’d, Lombardi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 656 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Special masters are generally not tasked with diagnosing injuries. In Lombardi, the
Federal Circuit explained: “The function of a special master is not to ‘diagnose’ vaccine-related
injuries, but instead to determine ‘based on the record evidence as a whole and the totality of the
case, whether it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a vaccine caused the
petitioner’s injury.’” Lombardi, 656 F.3d at 1343, citing Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
However, the Federal Circuit has determined that in certain instances, “if there is a
dispute as to the nature of a petitioner’s injury, the special master may opine on the nature of the
petitioner’s injury.” Contreras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 844 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2017), citing Hibbard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 698 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also
27

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 28 of 47
Locane v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 686 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Broekelschen v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 618 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
In Hibbard, the Federal Circuit reasoned: “If a special master can determine that a
petitioner did not suffer the injury that she claims was caused by the vaccine, there is no reason
why the special master should be required to undertake and answer the separate (and frequently
more difficult) question whether there is a medical theory, supported by ‘reputable medical or
scientific explanation,’ by which a vaccine can cause the kind of injury that the petitioner claims
to have suffered.” 698 F.3d at 1365.
While the special master is not required to reach a specific diagnosis, the special master
may appropriately evaluate at least the nature of petitioner’s injury and whether that aligns with
petitioner’s theory. For example, in Broekelschen, the petitioner posited “transverse myelitis
[which] is an inflammatory event caused by an immune response,” while the respondent posited
“anterior spinal artery syndrome, [which] is a vascular event caused by a blockage.” 618 F.3d at
1346. The Federal Circuit observed: “Nearly all of the evidence on causation was dependent on
the diagnosis” and because the injury itself [was] in dispute, the proposed injuries differ[ed]
significantly in their pathology, and the question of causation turn[ed] on which injury [the
petitioner] suffered.” Id. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held “it was appropriate… for the
special master to first determine which injury was best supported by the evidence presented in
the record before applying the Althen test so that the special master could subsequently
determine causation relative to the injury.” Id.
In contrast, in Contreras, the Court of Federal Claims held that the special master erred
by diagnosing the petitioner’s illness – as TM and not Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) –
before evaluating the Althen prongs. 107 Fed. Cl. 280, 292-93. The Court reasoned that the case
contained “ample evidence that TM and GBS are similar diseases with similar pathologies” and
the parties’ “unified position [was] that an exact diagnosis of [the petitioner’s illness] was not
required to rule on causation.” Id. at 293. The Court of Federal Claims articulated that “the
general rule is that the special master should not conduct a differential diagnosis, at the outset of
the causation analysis, to choose one diagnosis over another, or over a combination of
diagnoses.” Id., aff’d 844 F.3d 1363; see also Andreu, 569 F.3d 1367, 1378 (holding that the
special master need not determine whether an initial seizure was febrile or afebrile for purposes
of assessing vaccine causation).
Relevant to this inquiry, the Vaccine Act provides that a special master must consider the
record as a whole including any medical diagnosis contained therein. Section 300aa-13(b)(1).
However, no diagnosis in the medical records is “binding on the special master.” Id. Rather, “[i]n
evaluating the weight to be afforded to any such diagnosis… the special master… shall consider
the entire record and the course of the injury, disability, illness, or condition until the date of the
judgment of the special master.” Id. The special master shall also consider any expert opinions
and additional medical scientific evidence in the record. Id.
B. Causation
A petitioner may prevail by proving either that (1) the vaccinee suffered an injury listed
28

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 29 of 47
on the Vaccine Injury Table with onset beginning within a corresponding time period following
receipt of a corresponding vaccine (a “Table Injury”), for which causation is presumed or that (2)
the vaccinee suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. Under either method,
however, the petitioner must also show that the vaccinee “suffered the residual effects or
complications of the illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than six months after the
administration of the vaccine.” Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
In the present case, petitioner does not and cannot allege a Table injury. Thus, he bears
the burden of establishing actual causation. To do so, he must “show by preponderant evidence
that the vaccination brought about the injury by providing 1) a medical theory connecting the
vaccination and 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.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). There must be preponderant evidence for each Althen prong. Caves v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 119, 132 (2011), aff. per curiam, 463 Fed. Appx. 932 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).
Under Althen prong one, the causation theory must relate to the injury alleged. Thus, a
petitioner must provide a “reputable” medical or scientific explanation that the vaccine received
can cause the type of injury alleged. Pafford, 451 F.3d at 1355-56. The theory must be based on
a “sound and reliable medical or scientific explanation.” Knudsen, 35 F.3d at 548. It must only
be “legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.” Id. at 549. However, the theory
still must be based on a “sound and reliable medical or scientific explanation.” Id. at 548. The
Federal Circuit explained in Althen that “while [that petitioner’s claim] involves the possible link
between [tetanus toxoid] vaccination and central nervous system injury, a sequence hitherto
unproven in medicine, the purpose of the Vaccine Act’s preponderance standard is to allow the
finding of causation in a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the
human body.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280 (emphasis added).
Under Althen prong two, petitioner must prove “a logical sequence of cause and effect
showing that the vaccination was the reason for [her] injury.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. This
prong is sometimes referred to as the “did it cause” test; i.e. in this particular case, did the
vaccine(s) cause the alleged injury. Broekelschen, 618 F. 3d at 1345 (“Because causation is
relative to the injury, a petitioner must provide a reputable medical or scientific explanation that
pertains specifically to the petitioner’s case”). Temporal association alone is not evidence of
causation. See Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9556 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir.
1992). This sequence of cause and effect is usually supported by facts derived from petitioner’s
medical records. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1375-77; Capizzano, 440 F.3d at
1326; Grant, 956 F.2d at 1148.
Althen prong three requires establishing a “proximate temporal relationship” between the
vaccination and the injury alleged. Althen at 1281. That term has equated to the phrase
“medically-acceptable temporal relationship.” Id. A petitioner must offer “preponderant proof
that the onset of symptoms occurred within a timeframe which, given the medical understanding
of the disorder’s etiology, it is medically acceptable to infer causation.” de Bazan v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The explanation for what is
29

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 30 of 47
medically acceptable timeframe must align with the theory of how the relevant vaccine can cause
an injury (Althen prong one). Id. at 1352.
The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the petitioner to demonstrate that it
is “more likely than not” that the vaccine caused the injury. Moberly v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Proof of medical certainty is not
required. Bunting v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A
petitioner must demonstrate that the vaccine was “not only [a] but for cause of the injury but also
a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1321 (quoting Shyface v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 135 F.3d 1344, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Pafford v. Sec’y of
Health and Human Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Causation is determined on a
case-by-case basis, with “no hard and fast per se scientific or medical rules.” Knudsen v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A fact-finder may rely upon
“circumstantial evidence” which is consistent with the “system created by Congress, in which
close calls regarding causation are resolved in favor of injured claimants.” Althen, 418 F. 3d at
1280.
The petitioner often presents expert testimony in support of his or her claim. Lampe v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 219 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Expert testimony in the
Vaccine Program is usually evaluated according to the factors set forth in Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594-96 (1993); see also Cedillo, 617 F.3d at 1339 (citing
Terran v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 195 F.3d 1302, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A special
master may use the Daubert framework to evaluate the reliability of expert testimony, but expert
testimony need not meet each Daubert factor to be reliable. Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 941 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Daubert factors are “meant to be helpful,
not definitive,” and all factors “‘do not…necessarily apply even in every instance in which the
reliability of scientific testimony is challenged.’” Boatmon, 941 F. 3d at 1359 (citing Kumho
Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). Thus, for
Vaccine Act claims, a “special master is entitled to require some indicia of reliability to support
the assertion of the expert witness.” Moberly at 1324. Where both sides offer expert testimony,
a special master’s decision may be “based on the credibility of the experts and the relative
persuasiveness of their competing theories.” Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
219 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Lampe, 219 F.3d 1357 at 1362).
If the petitioner makes a prima facie case supporting vaccine causation-in-fact, the
burden shifts to respondent to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury is instead
due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine. Deribeaux v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 717 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Section 13(a)(1)(B)). Respondent
has the burden of demonstrating that: “[A] factor unrelated to the vaccination is the more likely
or principal cause of injury alleged. Such a showing establishes that the factor unrelated, not the
vaccination, was ‘principally responsible’ for the injury. If the evidence or alternative cause is
seen in equipoise, then the government has failed in its burden of persuasion and compensation
must be awarded.” Knudsen, 35 F.3d at 551.
30

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 31 of 47
V. Analysis
A. Petitioner’s diagnosis
As a threshold matter, a petitioner must establish that he suffered from the condition for
which he seeks compensation. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Humn. Servs., 618 F.3d 1339,
1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “The function of a special master is not to ‘diagnose’ vaccine-related
injuries, but instead to determine ‘based on the record as a whole and the totality of the case,
whether it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a vaccine caused the
[petitioner’s] injury.’ Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 568 F.3d 1367, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (quoting Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 549 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“Although the Vaccine Act does not require absolute precision, it does require the petitioner to
establish an injury-- the Act specifically creates a claim for compensation for ‘vaccine-related
injury or death.’” Stillwell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 118 Fed. Cl. 47, 56 (2014) (quoting
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has established that it is “appropriate
for the special master to first determine what injury, if any, [is] supported by the evidence
presented in the record” before applying a causation analysis pursuant to Althen v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Lombardi, 656 F.3d at 1351-53. For the
reasons set forth below, I have concluded that the petitioner has preponderantly established that
he suffered from small fiber neuropathy.
Petitioner asserts that he suffered from small fiber neuropathy and that his diagnosis is
supported by the medical records and the opinion of one of his treating neurologists, Dr.
Bobenhouse. See Pet’r Exs. 12, 35, 43. Respondent’s expert, Dr. Chaudry asserts that petitioner
did not suffer from small fiber neuropathy although he could not articulate a specific diagnosis to
describe petitioner’s condition post-vaccination. See Resp. Exs. A, B. Dr. Chaudry’s asserted
that many of petitioner’s signs and symptoms, including joint pain, diminished reflexes, along
with “normal” skin biopsy, were inconsistent with small fiber neuropathy. Id.; Tr. 202-04. Drs.
Kinsbourne and Chaudry agree that the best way to diagnose an individual with small fiber
neuropathy is by reviewing a patient’s clinical symptoms, and then if necessary, confirming the
diagnosis with objective testing. Tr. 78,167. Furthermore, the medical literature submitted by
both parties indicates that the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy can be “particularly difficult,”
and that the “[d]iagnosis of small fiber neuropathy is determined primarily by the history and
physical exam, but functional neurophysiologic testing and skin biopsy evaluation….can provide
diagnostic confirmation.” See Resp. Ex. B, Tab 3 at 1; Pet’r Ex. 66 at 1.
1. Small Fiber Neuropathy: Signs and Symptoms and Diagnostic
Criteria
As explained by multiple medical articles filed in this case, small fiber neuropathy is the
result of damage to the small-diameter somatic and autonomic unmyelinated C-fibers and/or the
thinly myelinated A-delta nerve fibers. Pet’r Ex. 67 at 1; Pet’r Ex. 66 at 2; see also Pet’r Ex. 45
at 2 (Dr. Kinsbourne stating, “Small fiber neuropathy implicates C-fibers (unmyelinated) and A-
delta fibers (lightly myelinated)”); Resp. Ex. D at 1 (“Small fiber neuropathy is defined as a
structural abnormality of small fibers characterized pathologically by degeneration of the distal
terminations of small fiber nerve endings.”).
31

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 32 of 47
The Lacomis, Hovaguimian, Oaklander, Gorson and Themistocleous articles explain that
“typical” small fiber neuropathy symptoms begin with sensory disturbances in the feet or hands,
followed by progression in a “stocking-glove” distribution, which can feel like tingling or
numbness or temperature disturbances. See Pet’r Ex. 35 at 1; Pet’r Ex. 66 at 2; Pet’r Ex. 72 at 2;
Resp’t Ex. D at 3. Hovaguimian and Gorson also indicate that “electric shock-like pain” is also
reported in patients with small fiber neuropathy. Pet’r Ex. 66 at 2; Pet’ Ex. 72 at 7 (“painful
prickling and electrical shooting pains were also common.”). Altered temperature sensibility is
also a common symptom endorsed in the medical literature. See Pet’r Ex. 66 at 2-3; Resp’t Ex.
D at 4 (“There is often a distal loss of pinprick or thermal sensation). Drs. Chaudry, Kinsbourne,
and Bobenhouse all endorsed these symptoms as part of small fiber neuropathy. Resp. Ex. A at
9; Pet’r Ex. 30 at 4; Tr. 35.
Drs. Chaudry, Kinsbourne, and Bobenhouse also agreed that small fiber neuropathy
patients will typically have normal strength and tendon reflexes. Tr. 12-13; 62; 171.
Hovaguimian and Themistocleous explain that “motor function, light touch, vibration and
proprioception” are typically recorded as normal because those are related to large fiber nerves.
Pet’r Ex. 72; Resp’t Ex. D at 4 at 4.
The Oaklander article explains that SFN patients can also present with other symptoms
that are considered “atypical.” Pet’r Ex. 67 at 3. For example, chronic fatigue and reduced
exertional tolerance in SFN are caused by neuropathic microvasculopathy “as tissues become
unable to increase perfusion during peak demand.” Pet’r Ex. 67 at 3. Additionally, Oaklander
and Gorson found that some SFN patients experienced neuropathic pain in the proximal regions
of the limbs, face and trunk, which suggests involvement with the dorsal root ganglia. Pet’r Ex.
67 at 4; Pet’r Ex. 72 at 2. Gorson identified 23 patients that experienced small fiber sensory loss
in the proximal regions of their limbs, face and trunk, and characterized pain as “burning,
prickling and shooting.” Pet’r Ex. 72 at 4-5.
Hovaguimian states that “The history and physical examination findings are still
considered the gold standard against which all tests are compared when making a diagnosis of a
small fiber neuropathy. A detailed review of the symptoms, rate of progression, and complaints
suggestive of autonomic fiber involvement is necessary. Generally, if a patient presents with a
compelling history for a small fiber neuropathy and an appropriate clinical exam, further testing
to confirm the diagnosis may be unnecessary.” Pet’r Ex. 66 at 3. Oaklander explains that “when
symptoms are non-specific and examination findings are muted or subjective, objective
confirmation,” may assist in recognizing SFN. Pet’r Ex 67 at 6. EMG and nerve conduction
studies, however, are ineffective at testing for small fiber neuropathy. Id.; see also Pet’r Ex. 66
at 4; Resp’t Ex. D at 4. Hovaguimian, Oaklander, and Themistocleous all state skin biopsies,
which can measure intra-epidermal nerve fiber (“IENF”) density, can assist in the diagnosis of
SFN. But the Oaklander, Lauria and Devigili articles warn that there can be false negatives. See
Pet’r Ex. 67 at 6; Pet’r Ex. 53 at 5 (Identifying four patients with positive SFN symptoms of
burning in their feet with normal IENF findings). Further, Lauria and Themistocleous indicate
that IENF axonal swelling may be present and can be considered a “marker of pre-degenerative
changes.” Pet’r Ex. 53 at 1; Resp’t Ex. D at 7. The Devigili et al. article submitted by
respondent indicated that the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy can be made absent a positive
32

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 33 of 47
skin biopsy. Resp. Ex. B, Tab 3 at 4. The paper explained that the diagnosis of small fiber
neuropathy was made when “at least two of the following examinations were abnormal: (1)
clinical signs of small fiber impairment (pinprick and thermal sensory loss and/or allodynia
and/or hyperalgesia), which distribution was consistent with peripheral neuropathy (length or
non-length dependent neuropathy); (ii) abnormal warm and/or cooling threshold at the foot
assessed by QST; (iii) reduced IENF density at the distal leg.” Id. at 4.
Additionally, the Gorson, Gemigani, and Oaklander articles explain that small-fiber
neuropathy can be “non-length dependent” and that patients will present with symptoms that are
not consistent with the traditional stocking-glove distribution. See Pet’r Ex. 67 at 4. The
Gemignani article explains that “SFN was classified as ‘non-length’ dependent when the sensory
disturbance was restricted to, or predominant in, different body sites, with involvement of face,
trunk, and proximal limbs, either sparing the acral extremities or with simultaneous involvement
of the proximal and distal areas.” Pet’r Ex. 33 at 2; Tr. 84. Oaklander explained that “patchy or
proximal distributions suggest targeting of sensory or autonomic cell bodies (ganglionitis or
neuronitis) rather than axonopathy.” Pet’r Ex. 67 at 4. Consistent with the Oaklander article,
Gorson stated that the pattern of neuropathic pain “involving the proximal regions of the limbs,
tongue, face, scalp and trunk in the non-length dependent manner” are “suggestive of a
ganglionopathy with preferential involvement of small fiber neurons.” Pet’r Ex. 72 at 7.
2. Discussion and Finding that Petitioner Has Small Fiber
Neuropathy
Overall, I find that petitioner’s medical history, examinations, and tests support a
diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy by preponderant evidence.
Petitioner’s symptoms that are considered “typical of small fiber neuropathy” were first
documented around April 3, 2015, beginning with “numbness,” and “tingling,” and then were
consistently documented in his medical records. At petitioner’s appointment on April 3, 2015,
he reported “paresthesias and dysesthesias of his feet bilaterally.” Pet’r Ex. 14 at 102. The
numbness began in his feet and began to ascend into his ankles, which was documented at his
appointment with Dr. Sundell on April 17, 2015. Dr. Sundell wrote that petitioner “cannot feel
the pin being sharp until above the ankles bilaterally” and “cannot feel the pin being sharp until
the elbows bilaterally.” See Pet’r Ex. 24 at 9. Petitioner’s numbness and tingling was then
consistently reported to multiple providers and recorded on examination. Dr. Bertolini observed
that petitioner had decreased sensation on his forearms and hands and numbness and tingling in
his calves on October 29, 2015. Pet’r Ex. 14 at 43. These complaints of numbness and tingling
appearing in a stocking glove distribution were consistently documented in petitioner’s medical
records. See Pet’r Ex 14 at 57 (Appointment on September 4, 2015 with Dr. Bertolini noting that
petitioner was “still having problems with paresthesias and decreased sensation to light touch,
cold sensation, and hot sensation diminished in a stocking glove distribution affecting his hands
to his elbows bilaterally and affecting his feet and toes up to his knees.); Pet’r Ex. 14 at 26
(January 29, 2016 appointment noting that petitioner was having “chronic numbness, tingling,
and paraesthesias of his arms and legs stocking glove neuropathy.”); Pet’r Ex.18 at 1
(Appointment on September 1, 2016 stating that petitioner “is also still having numbness of the
upper extremities, from the elbows down, and the legs, from the knees down.”). As Dr. Chaudry
33

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 34 of 47
testified during the hearing, “decreased pinprick from elbows and knees down….is something we
find for small fiber neuropathy, in a stocking-glove pattern.” Tr. 144; 171.
Additionally, at multiple points in petitioner’s medical records, an alteration to
petitioner’s temperature in his feet and hands was noted. See Pet’r Ex. 7 at 4 (noting petitioner
“does have some paresthesias, with a cold sensation of his hands and feet.”); Pet’r Ex. 16 at 3
(“[petitioner] does complain of some sensory type dysesthesias or sensation of coolness
involving the feet bilaterally, which is new.”); Pet’r Ex. 69 at 1 (petitioner reported that “his feet
tingle constantly with increased coldness in his feet.”); Pet’r Ex. 29 at 36 (reporting that
petitioner has “decreased sensation to light touch, cold sensation, and hot sensation diminished in
a stocking/glove distribution affecting his hands to his elbows bilaterally and affecting his feet
and toes up to his knees.”). Petitioner’s Quantitative Sensory Testing (“QST”) showed that
petitioner had elevated vibratory, cooling and heat-pain thresholds, at least the latter two of
which are characteristics of small fiber neuropathy. Pet’r Ex. 25 at 2. Dr. Bobenhouse explained
that petitioner’s QST finding that petitioner had “elevated vibratory, cooling, and heat-pain
thresholds,” means that it takes “that much more effort to cause that sensation, so it’s an
increased threshold to try to cause the cold feeling or the warm feeling…and if there’s an
impairment of that signal, then it would raise the threshold, and so it would decrease the
sensitivity for those modalities.” Tr. 36-37. Dr. Chaudry, Kinsbourne, and Bobenhouse all
agreed that alterations to temperature sensation is also consistent with small fiber neuropathy.
Tr. 36, 66, 70, 141.
Over the course of three years, before Dr. Bobenhouse formally diagnosed petitioner with
small fiber neuropathy, many of petitioner’s treating physicians had suspected that petitioner
may have some type of sensory neuropathy. See e.g. Pet’r Ex 8 at 7; Pet’r Ex. 14 at 26. Dr.
Bobenhouse testified that when petitioner first presented to him, “he certainly had a glove-
stocking type of distribution of sensory impairment,” and that petitioner was complaining of
“severe cold on the dorsal surface of his foot,” which symptoms were consistent with small fiber
neuropathy. Tr. 32-35. Dr. Bobenhouse also stated that he did not feel that another skin biopsy
was necessary because they have a “low yield for determining the etiology for small fiber
neuropathy,” and that it is “medically reasonable to make a diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy
without a skin biopsy.” Tr. 38-39.
Despite petitioner consistently endorsing symptoms consistent with small fiber
neuropathy as agreed upon by all the experts and having neurological examinations consistent
with small fiber neuropathy, Dr. Chaudry focused on petitioner’s other symptoms that appeared
after the vaccination to conclude that petitioner did not have small fiber neuropathy. His opinion
is unpersuasive.
In both his expert report and during the hearing, Dr. Chaudry asserted that joint pain,
fatigue, headaches, and weakness do not present with small fiber neuropathy. See Resp’t Ex. A
at 8. I agree with Dr. Chaudry that petitioner’s joint pain is unrelated to his diagnosis of small
fiber neuropathy. However, it does appear that petitioner’s initial symptoms of joint pain and
muscle aches, which began two days post-vaccination were consistent with an inflammatory
reaction to the Twinrix vaccine. Dr. Kinsbourne credibly explained that muscle aches and joint
pain “is a well-known, severe but transitory adverse effect of multiple vaccinations, so that’s
34

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 35 of 47
consistent with a vaccine reaction.” Tr. 50. Dr. Bobenhouse agreed, testifying that petitioner’s
complaints of joint pain in his hips and shoulders were likely “more of a systemic type
response,” to the vaccine, but that those specific symptoms were unrelated to the diagnosis of
small fiber neuropathy. Id. at 30-31. Petitioner’s medical records are consistent with Dr.
Kinsbourne’s opinion. Petitioner’s initial complaints of muscle ache, joint pain, and fatigue
began two days after he received the vaccine. Pet’r Ex. 15 at 676, 683. When petitioner was
initially hospitalized on March 27, 2015, petitioner also had an elevated C-reactive protein and
elevated liver enzymes, consistent with an inflammatory response to the vaccine. Tr. 55; see
also Pet’r Ex. 15 at 190 (“felt the elevated liver function tests were due to systemic process,
possibly reaction to the vaccine itself.”). Additionally, treating physicians associated petitioner’s
initial reaction of “myalgias, arthralgias with severe fatigue and body aches” and nausea to him
receiving the Twinrix vaccine. Pet’r Ex. 15 at 197.
Further, petitioner’s generalized joint pain appears to have resolved by September 2015.
See Pet’r Ex. 14 at 57-61 (“the myalgais and arthralgias have resolved in the last two weeks and
gotten a lot better.”). Nearly one year after receiving the vaccine, on March 29, 2016, petitioner
reported to Dr. Bertolini that he was working full-time, using a 2-pound sledgehammer without
difficulty, but that he is “using more of his neck muscles and upper thoracic back muscles”
which was straining them. Id. at 16. In September 2016, petitioner sought treatment from
orthopedist, Dr. Reckmyer for left hip pain. Pet’r Ex. 29 at 25. After imaging, petitioner was
diagnosed with left hip bursitis, left hip femoral acetabular impingement, and mild left hip
degenerative disease. Id. at 13. Petitioner underwent a left hip bursectomy and windowing of the
tensor fascia to relieve his pain in January 2017. Id. at 16. Even though petitioner reported
having ongoing joint pain to Dr. Gobbo on April 16, 2018, including shoulder and lower
extremity joint pain, given petitioner’s history of lower back pain, muscle pain associated with
his job, hip surgery and prior knee issues, the complaints at this appointment appear to be more
consistent with his historical, job related muscle and joint pain, are more orthopedic in nature
and not part of small fiber neuropathy.
Dr. Chaudry also focused on the presence of reduced or diminished joint reflexes to
suggest that petitioner did not have small fiber neuropathy. While highlighting petitioner’s
abnormal reflex recordings, Dr. Chaudry minimized petitioner’s symptoms and evaluations that
were consistent with small fiber neuropathy, making his opinion less persuasive. During the
hearing, he acknowledged that exams found “neuropathy from decreased pinprick from elbow
and knees down. Now that is something we find for small fiber neuropathy, which is a stocking-
glove pattern as reported. But if this were small fiber neuropathy, then your reflexes should not
be zero to 1, which they were in this case.” Tr. 144. However, Dr. Bobenhouse testified that
reflexes vary by individual and that some people may have minimal or absent reflexes depending
on the situation, but reflexes is only “one factor that one takes into account when looking at a
patient’s exam and then trying to determine what the problem is.” Tr. 11. Prior to the
vaccination, petitioner’s reflexes had been recorded as 2 out of 4 or even 2+ out of 4. See Pet’r
Ex. 15 at 970, 1140. When petitioner’s reflexes were tested after receiving the vaccination on
April 7, 2015, by neurologist Dr. Sunil Nair, they were 2+ over the knee and ankle, consistent
with his reflex recording pre-vaccination. Again, when petitioner’s reflexes were tested by Dr.
Feely on July 1, 2015 they were recorded as “DTRs +2/4 throughout,” which is normal. See Pet’r
Ex. 9 at 2; Pet’r Ex. 21 at 2.
35

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 36 of 47
Further, Dr. Chaudry acknowledged that the recording of petitioner’s reflexes was
inconsistent throughout the record, with different doctor’s recording normal or reduced. See Tr.
200. What is consistent throughout petitioner’s medical records are examinations that
demonstrate that he was experiencing abnormal sensory disturbances consistent with small fiber
neuropathy. See Pet’r Ex. 14 at 16 (“decreased sensation to pinprick of his forearms and
hands”); Id. at 27 (“decreased sensation to light touch and pinprick of his hands and arm”); Id. at
41 (“still having problems with stocking-glove numbness on extensor surface of the arms
bilaterally from the elbows down to fingers and numbness of his knees down to his toes.”); Pet’r
Ex. 24 at 9 (“He indicates he cannot feel the pin being sharp until above the ankles bilaterally.
He indicates he cannot feel the pin being sharp until the elbows bilaterally.”). Given the
inconsistent reflex recordings in the record and that some of the reflex recordings were consistent
with petitioner’s pre-vaccination recordings, Dr. Bobenhouse’s explanation for why petitioner’s
reflexes were recorded as diminished or reduced at times is more persuasive.
Dr. Chaudry’s opinion that petitioner’s skin biopsy rules out small fiber neuropathy is
also unpersuasive. Dr. Chaudry opined that Dr. Thaisetthawatkul’s opinion of petitioner’s skin
biopsy was unequivocal and that petitioner’s skin biopsy was completely normal. Resp’t Ex. A
at 6; Tr. 153.
Dr. Thaisetthawatkul ordered a skin biopsy, and two samples were taken from
petitioner’s right leg. Pet’r Ex. 22 at 24. The biopsy was processed by the University of
Rochester Medical Center. Id. The finding from petitioner’s “right distal leg” was that his
epidermal nerve fiber density estimate was 11.1 fibers/mm (normal > 5.2 fibers/mm) and
“morphologic analysis shows some small and medium-sized axonal swellings.” Id. at 7. The
sample from his right proximal thigh also showed epidermal nerve fiber density within normal
limits and there wereas “no significant axonal swellings.” Id. Dr. Thaisetthawatkul reviewed
petitioner’s skin biopsy and interpreted it as “normal” and that it “show[s] no evidence of small
fiber neuropathy.” Id. at 1.
Dr. Kinsbourne and Dr. Bobenhouse indicated that the finding of the swelling of small
and medium-sized axons were abnormal. See Tr. 24; 73. Dr. Bobenhouse testified that skin
biopsies can help confirm a diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy but do little to determine the
etiology or help in the treatment. Tr. 38. He stated that he feels that it is medically “reasonable”
to make a diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy without a skin biopsy because he is just attempting
to manage the symptoms and thus did not pursue another biopsy. Tr. 38.
Dr. Kinsbourne testified that the finding of small and medium sized axonal swelling is
indicative of degenerating axons. Tr. 72-73. He stated that “axons swell in the process of
degenerating.” Id. He said that it is the degeneration of the living axons that causes the pain
“because as they degenerate, they become hyperactive and they fire, as it were, for no reason.
And that causes the burning or shooting pain quality of the neuropathic pain that people with
small fiber neuropathy experience.” Tr. 73. Both the Lauria and Themistocleous articles support
Dr. Kinsbourne’s opinion that the presence of axonal swelling is suggestive of degenerative
changes to the nerve fibers. See Pet’r Ex. 53 at 1; Resp’t Ex. D at 7. Lauria explains, “Patients
with painful neuropathy frequently showed morphologic modifications of cutaneous nerves, such
36

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 37 of 47
as periodic swellings of IENF, which were commonly considered degenerative changes. Axonal
swellings can occur in response to damage to the cytoskeleton and transport systems and could
precede the loss of IENF.” Pet’r Ex. 53 at 1. Additionally, when studying skin biopsies of
patients with positive neuropathic pain, Lauria found four patients with persistent burning feet
that had normal IENF density but increased axonal swelling. Id. at 5. They hypothesized that
the “diffuse swellings might represent early evidence of IENF axonopathy,” and found that at a
follow-up skin biopsy, all patients showed a decrease in epidermal innervation density at the
distal leg. Id. The Gorson article also explained that morphological abnormalities were
commonly found in skin biopsies, including “prominent axonal swelling in the dermis and
epidermis.” Pet’r Ex. 72 at 7. Dr. Kinsbourne explained that petitioner’s skip biopsy sample at
his distal leg showed active swelling of the small and medium axons, which would precede
epidermal denervation.
Dr. Kinsbourne also explained that a positive skin biopsy is not necessary for the
diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 89. The authors of Devigili examined 67 patients with
symptoms consistent with small fiber neuropathy and were able to positively diagnosis 11.9% of
patients with small fiber neuropathy based on positive QST and abnormal clinical findings.
Resp’t Ex. B, Tab 3 at 1; Tr. 89. Dr. Kinsbourne also stated that the same authors were unable to
explain the correlation between fiber density and neuropathic pain. Tr. 90. Instead, the
neuropathic pain is caused by the process of degeneration, making them hypersensitive and “apt
to discharge inappropriately, causing severe pain.” Id. at 91. Although it would have provided a
higher level of diagnostic certainty if the skin biopsy had been positive, the evidence of axonal
swelling, and the recognition in the literature that SFN can be diagnosed without a positive
IENFD test particularly when there are significant clinical symptoms and a positive QST test as
was documented in this case, allows the conclusion that the skin biopsy did not rule out SFN and
that the diagnosis can be made without it.
Oaklander explains that diagnosing small fiber neuropathy is difficult given the variation
of symptoms that patients can experience and that if a patient seeks treatment from different
specialists, diagnosing SFN can be missed. Pet’r Ex. 67 at 2. Dr. Oaklander also suggested that
there is an overlap between patients who have been diagnosed with small fiber neuropathy and
fibromyalgia, noting that approximately 49% of patients with fibromyalgia have SFN. Id.
Positive sensory symptoms on examination and a positive thermal sensory threshold test can
confirm a diagnosis of SFN. Id. at 1; see also Pet’r Ex. 66 at 3. Additionally, Devigili indicates
that approximately 10% of patients with SFN patients that have positive QST testing have
normal skin biopsy results. Resp’t Ex. B, Tab 3 at 12.
Given petitioner’s consistent reports of sensory disturbances in a stocking-glove
distribution to multiple providers, examinations that demonstrated such sensory disturbances,
and petitioner’s positive QST testing, the testimony of petitioner’s treating physician, Dr.
Bobenhouse, and the expert opinion of Dr. Kinsbourne, I find that the record supports a finding
of a diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy.
B. Causation
1. Althen prong one
37

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 38 of 47
Under the first prong of Althen, a petitioner 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. To satisfy this prong, a petitioner’s theory must be based on a “sound and reliable
medical or scientific explanation.” Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 35 F.3d 543,
548 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Proof of causation does not “require identification and proof of specific
biological mechanisms[.]” Id. at 549. “It is not necessary for a petitioner to point to conclusive
evidence in the medical literature linking a vaccine to the petitioner’s injury, as long as the
petitioner can show by preponderance of the evidence that there is a causal relationship between
the vaccine and the injury, whatever the details of the mechanism may be.” Moberly v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 592 F. 3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Dr. Kinsbourne opined that petitioner developed small fiber neuropathy, an autoimmune
condition that is often considered a variant of Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”), after the
Twinrix vaccine triggered an inflammatory response resulting in autoreactive cells attacking the
small nerve fibers. Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6; Tr. 94. He testified that small nerve fibers are susceptible
to selective attack by antibodies, the same way in which myelinated nerve fibers are attacked in
GBS. Tr. 105; Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6 (“Like long nerve fibers, small nerve fibers are potential targets
for autoimmune attack in Guillain-Barré Syndrome.”). Dr. Kinsbourne acknowledged that no
exact or specific causal mechanism has been identified for small fiber neuropathy, however, “the
fact that small nerve fibers are often implicated in GBS creates the presumption that long-fiber
GBS and short fiber small fiber neuropathy are related in their mechanism of causation.” Pet’r
Ex. 30 at 6. Dr. Kinsbourne theory was also supported by the medical literature filed in this case.
The Oaklander article explained that small fiber neuropathy can be an immune mediated
condition and “appears inflammatory, involving autoreactive B cells.” Pet’r Ex. 67 at 6. Dr.
Oaklander stated that, “Inflammatory causality was proposed when comprehensive evaluations
revealed neither familial, diabetic, nor toxic causes but rather histories of other autoimmune
illnesses in 14 of 41 patients and inflammatory blood-test markers in 32 of 36.” Id. Furthermore,
Oaklander noted that “Reports of early onset SFN after infectious exposures, particularly to
human papillomavirus vaccination, suggest potential molecular mimicry. Autoreactive SFN also
affects adults but is easiest to diagnose in children and otherwise healthy young people without
other risk.” Id. Oaklander stated, “Inflammatory and autoreactive conditions are increasingly
linked to [small fiber neuropathy], given the small fibers immune role….Medical histories and
blood test results in large studies of patients with idiopathic small fiber neuropathy suggest
associations with dysimmunity.” Id. at 8. During the hearing, Dr. Kinsbourne also testified that
Oaklander also observed that the presentation of small fiber neuropathy can resemble Guillain-
Barre syndrome. Tr. 102. Oaklander explained:
We and others have proposed the existence of small fiber-targeting inflammatory SFN,
with acute and chronic presentations temporally resembling Guillain-Barre syndrome and
chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, and preliminary evidence of
episodic relapsing-remitting courses. Unlike in Guillain-Barre syndrome and chronic
inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, inflammatory cells are not prominent in
SFN biopsies or CSF. Current evidence links autoreactive B cells using complement,
with low C4 level implicating the classic or lectin pathways.
38

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 39 of 47
Id. at 8. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that the Oaklander article is suggesting that small fiber
neuropathy not only appears to resemble GBS or CIDP, but that it can be caused by autoreactive
B cells. Tr. 102. He stated that because small fiber neuropathy is “part of an autoimmune
disorder,” that “it can be triggered by whatever GBS can be triggered by, which is a whole
diversity of triggers.” Tr. 103. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that “hepatitis B is a well-known
notorious cause of GBS, so by the same token, it has to be a potential cause of small fiber
neuropathy.” Id.
The Seneviratne article hypothesized that small fiber neuropathy was a variant of sensory
GBS. Pet’r Ex. 61. The authors reviewed the cases of six patients who had pure sensory GBS,
but who also had “clinical and electrophysiological features suggestive of small fiber sensory
neuropathy.” Id. Four of the patients reported a preceding illness prior to the onset of acute
numbness in the upper and lower limbs. Id. All of the six patients had symmetric “stocking-
glove” type sensory loss for pinprick and temperature and had intact vibration and
proprioception. Id. Seneviratne reported that the patients’ numbness and peripheral sensory
loss appeared to be the symptom that lasted the longest, while the burning dysesthesias appeared
to diminish with time. Id. at 2. These six patients could fulfill most of the diagnostic criteria for
sensory GBS, as they had elevated CSF, symmetric symptoms at onset, acute symptom onset,
and progression up to four weeks. Id. at 3. The authors opined that small sensory fibers are a
possible target for antibodies, in a similar way in which myelin is damaged by antibodies in
GBS. Id. They wrote, “There is evidence that in peripheral neuropathies, functionally different
small fiber systems are affected independently, and selective involvement of different small fiber
types is frequent.” Id. at 3. Dr. Kinsbourne opined that because small fibers can be a target for
damage in a similar manner in which the myelinated fibers are targeted by antibodies in GBS,
small fiber neuropathy can also be triggered by infections or vaccinations in the same way that
GBS can be caused. See Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6; Tr. 101.
Dr. Kinsbourne also referred to the Martinez article to support his opinion that small fiber
neuropathy can be triggered by the same mechanisms which can cause GBS. Tr. 101; Pet’r Ex.
30 at 6. He testified that the Martinez article indicated that small nociceptive fibers (which
transmit pain), are affected in patients that have neuropathic pain in GBS. Tr. 101. The article
followed 30 GBS patients and measured their neuropathic pain, along with quantitative sensory
testing to determine whether they had small fiber dysfunction as part of the GBS. Pet’r Ex. 71.
The study found that “patients with GBS had significantly greater warm, cold and mechanical
detection thresholds at the foot (suggestive of hypoesthesia), greater heat pain thresholds
(suggestive of hypoalgesia) and lower mechanical pain thresholds/enhancement of pain in
response to suprathreshold mechanical stimuli, suggestive of allodynia and hyperalgesia more so
than control subjects.” Id. at 4. The authors also found that the GBS patients that had sensory
impairment at the acute stage of GBS predicted residual neuropathic pain. Martinez explained
that “a recent study based on skin punch biops[ies] found reduced values for intraepidermal
nerve fiber density in GBS patients with a demyelinating form of the disease that were correlated
with abnormal thresholds for warm stimuli, indicating that small fiber neuropathy is also an
important manifestation of GBS.” Id. at 6. Martinez used QST to document small fiber
dysfunction in GBS patients, and the study found that GBS patients with neuropathic pain had
significantly worse heat and cold detection thresholds compared to GBS patients without
39

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 40 of 47
neuropathic pain and healthy controls. The study provides additional data that small fibers can
be affected in a similar manner as large or medium motor fibers in GBS. Id. Martinez wrote,
“These findings emphasize the importance of nociceptive fiber impairment (small fibers) in
neuropathic pain in GBS at both acute and chronic stages and suggest similarities between the
mechanisms of neuropathic pain in GBS and those of small fiber painful sensory
polyneuropathies.” Id. at 1. Dr. Kinsbourne stated that “Given the well-known propensity of
vaccination to cause GBS, this is evidence that small fiber neuropathy can also be an element of
an autoimmune neurological disorder.” Pet’r Ex. 30 at 6.
Additionally, the Pan article Dr. Kinsbourne referenced also supported his opinion that
small fiber neuropathy is related to GBS. Pan reviewed skin biopsies of patients with GBS and
found that “most dermal nerve bundles had broken apart, and individual dermal nerve axons
exhibited pathological signs of axonal degeneration. Some dermal nerves had become beads of
axonal debris, consistent with ongoing dermal nerve degeneration.” Pet’r Ex. 55 at 9. The
authors stated, “Our results indicate that cutaneous innervation is diminished in acute
monophasic polyneuropathy of inflammatory or immune-mediated etiology.” Id. at 12 The
authors found that in addition skin biopsy results, changes in thermal thresholds and
dysautonomia in the GBS patients, suggested “that small fiber sensory neuropathy is also an
important manifestation of GBS, and that GBS should be considered a global neuropathy instead
of a pure large-fiber neuropathy.” Id.
Dr. Chaudry disagreed with Dr. Kinsbourne’s characterization that small fiber neuropathy
is “akin” to GBS and he also disagreed that molecular mimicry could cause small fiber
neuropathy. Tr. 181. Dr. Chaudry stated the papers Dr. Kinsbourne referenced in which
neuropathic pain in patients with GBS was associated with small fiber neuropathy were
“controversial” and that the GBS patients have a “different kind of pain.” Tr. 180. He testified
that “nobody’s ever shown” that small fiber neuropathy could be caused by molecular mimicry.
Id. He stated that “Nobody ever treats small fiber neuropathy with IVIg or immune
medications15….If it was [an] immune attack or molecular mimicry, we would be using it.” Id.
However, the Oaklander article reported on an “uncontrolled study of 55 children and adults with
SFN that received 1g/kg or more of IVIG every 4 weeks for three months or longer, and
pretreatment pain severity with a mean of 6.3 dropped to 5.2. Three quarters of patients and
neurologists reported improvement and 16% of patients entered sustained remission, permitting
IVIG withdrawal.” Pet’r. Ex. 67 at 9. Gorson reported on a small number of SFN patients being
treated with IVIG with some success as well. Pet’r Ex. 72 at 6.
In addition to the multiple articles summarized above filed by petitioner in support of Dr.
Kinsbourne’s opinion that small fiber neuropathy is related to GBS, I have previously accepted
that small fiber neuropathy is akin to GBS where only the small fibers are affected. See Swaiss
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-286V, 2019 WL 6520791 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov.
4, 2019). Other special masters have also concluded that small fiber neuropathy is related to or
15 See Swaiss v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-286V, 2019 WL 6520791 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 4,
2019). In this case petitioner has been treated with IVIG for small fiber neuropathy at the Stanford University
Medical Center approximately monthly for multiple years and IVIG has provided the only source of relief for his
symptoms. The proffer in this case included compensation for monthly IVIG on an ongoing basis. No. 1568 ECF
190.
40

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 41 of 47
could be considered a variant of GBS. See Fiske v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-
1378V, 2023 WL 8352761, at *26; Doe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 2007 WL 3120297,
at *7-8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2007); see also Quirino v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 17-989V, 2023 WL 9229145, at * 20-22 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dc. 18, 2023) (finding
that large fiber polyneuropathies can include small fiber components and that respondent’s
expert conceded that “with respect to the immune causes of GBS there may be similarities
between the causes of GBS and SFN.”). While these cases are not binding, they are persuasive.
Furthermore, petitioner has provided sufficient evidence in this case to support Dr. Kinsbourne’s
opinion that small fiber neuropathy can be a variant of GBS and that the same immune
mechanism that can cause GBS, can also cause damage to the small nerve fibers.
While Dr. Chaudry endorsed molecular mimicry as a possible causal mechanism for
inducing GBS after an influenza infection, COVID, or c.jejuni infection, he argued that there is
not proof that molecular mimicry could be a mechanism for the hepatitis A or B infection or
vaccination as possibly causing GBS or small fiber neuropathy. See Tr. 183. He testified that
“nobody’s ever shown,” that molecular mimicry is the mechanism which can induce small fiber
neuropathy. Tr. 181.
However, petitioners are not required to demonstrate a specific biologic mechanism that
can cause their disease, nor are they required to provide epidemiological studies in support of
their theory. See Kottenstette, 861 Fed. App. 433 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2021) (citing Knudsen, 35
F.3d at 549 (reaffirming the principle that “proof of causation does not ‘require identification and
proof of specific biological mechanisms[.].’ ”); Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1378-79. The
Themistocleous article filed by respondent indicated that while there are no satisfactory
epidemiological studies of small fiber neuropathy there are “many potential causes of small fiber
neuropathy.” Resp. Ex. D at 2. The article states that, “The exact pathophysiological
mechanisms are unknown, and the most likely candidate mechanisms include autoantibodies
targeted against neuronal proteins (the identity of which is not yet known), and elevated pro-
inflammatory cytokines in the skin and dermal vasculitis.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). The
Lacomis article also acknowledged that the causes for “idiopathic small-fiber neuropathy” are
still unknown, in the largest category of patients. Pet’r Ex. 51 at 10. However, Lacomis stated
that “in some patients with idiopathic small fiber-neuropathy, an inflammatory autoimmune basis
has been hypothesized,” and he reviewed multiple articles that described patients with onset of
small fiber neuropathy after antecedent infections. Id. Lacomis observed that “there is evidence
that suggests, but does not prove, that infections or autoimmune processes may cause small-fiber
neuropathy. Unfortunately, there are no good laboratory markers of the autoimmune process.”
Id. Furthermore, the Oaklander article supports the theory that in many cases small fiber
neuropathy is an autoimmune disease, that involves autoreactive B cells. See Pet’r Ex. 67 at 6.
Oaklander stated that “Inflammatory causality was proposed when comprehensive evaluations
revealed neither familial, diabetic, nor toxic causes but rather histories of other autoimmune
illnesses in 14 out of 41 patients and inflammatory blood-test markers in 32 out of 36 patients.
Corticosteroids benefitted 67% of patients and intravenous immune globulins benefited 5 out of
8 patients. Reports of early onset SFN after infectious exposures….suggests molecular
mimicry.” Id. These articles make clear that identifying an exact mechanism for the cause of
SFN is extremely difficult to ascertain, but petitioner does not need to demonstrate such
exactness to prevail on Althen one.
41

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 42 of 47
Additionally, other special masters have found that the hepatitis B vaccine can result in
small fiber neuropathy by a mechanism of molecular mimicry. Quirino v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 17-989V, 2023 WL 9229145, at *19-20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 18, 2023);
see also Shaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 01-0707V, 2013 WL 2897425, at * 16
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 24, 2013) (finding the hepatitis B vaccine can cause small fiber
neuropathy through molecular mimicry); Drobbin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-
225V, 2020 WL 3799206, at * 17 (Fed/ Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 21, 2020) (finding that molecular
mimicry can cause flu-vaccine induced peripheral neuropathies, including small fiber
neuropathy). In Quirino, the experts agreed that “infectious and immune causes” are among the
causes of small fiber neuropathy and that the hepatitis B virus can cause peripheral neuropathies,
including large fiber poly neuropathy. Quirino, 2023 WL 9229145, at *20. Furthermore, the
special master found that the hepatitis B surface antigen, as contained within the hepatitis B
vaccine, can cause peripheral neuropathies, including small fiber neuropathy, through molecular
mimicry. Id. at 21. Similarly, in Shaw, the special master found that the hepatitis B vaccine can
cause small fiber neuropathy through molecular mimicry, even though there is not scientifically
certain evidence linking the hepatitis B vaccine or any vaccine to the injury of small fiber
neuropathy. Shaw, 2013 WL 2897425, at *16.
Dr. Kinsbourne acknowledged that the medical literature exploring the actual causes of
small fiber neuropathy is sparse, but he credibly explained how the small fibers can be a target of
an autoimmune attack when triggered by an infection or vaccination. In conjunction with his
opinion, the articles presented indicate that small fiber neuropathy can be immune mediated, and
that the pathogenesis of small fiber neuropathy is like that of GBS. See Pet’r Ex. 67 at 6; Pet’r
Ex. 72 at 6. Furthermore, the articles endorse petitioner’s theory that small fiber neuropathy may
be caused by an autoimmune process, including molecular mimicry. Therefore, I find that
petitioner has provided preponderant evidence to show that the hepatitis A/B vaccine can cause
small fiber neuropathy to satisfy Althen prong one.
2. Althen prong Three
To satisfy Althen prong three, petitioner first must establish the “timeframe for which it is
medically acceptable to infer causation,” and then, they must demonstrate that the onset of the
disease occurred in this period. Shapiro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532,
542-53 (2011); recons. denied after remand on other grounds, 105 Fed. Cl. 353 (2012), aff’d
without op., 503 F.App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A petitioner must offer “preponderant proof that
the onset of symptoms occurred within a time frame for which, given the medical understanding
of the disorder’s etiology, it is medically acceptable to infer causation in fact.” deBazan v. Sec’y
of Health and Hum. & Services, 539 F 3d 1347, 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2008). The explanation for what
is a medically acceptable time frame must also coincide with the theory of how the relevant
vaccine can cause an injury (the Althen prong one requirement).
Dr. Kinsbourne opined that petitioner’s small fiber neuropathy symptoms began
approximately eight days after his vaccination. Tr. 98. He observed that petitioner had an initial
inflammatory reaction to the Twinrix vaccine, that began approximately two-days after the
injection. Tr. 54-55. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that petitioner’s transient elevations in C-reactive
42

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 43 of 47
protein and AST/ALT levels were “consistent with an inflammatory response to the vaccine.”
Tr. 55. Furthermore, he stated that petitioner’s initial reports of joint pain were part of a “well-
known, severe transitory adverse effect,” of the vaccine, but petitioner’s symptoms evolved into
small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 50, 55. When petitioner saw Dr. Bertolini on April 3, 2015,
petitioner reported “numbness,” and “tingling,” which was noted as starting on March 26, 2015.
Pet’r Ex. 14 at 100. Dr. Kinsbourne testified that the paresthesias and dysesthesias of the feet
were the beginning symptoms of petitioner’s small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 58. At that same
appointment with Dr. Bertolini, petitioner was diagnosed with “paresthesias and dysesthesias of
[the] feet bilaterally secondary to hepatitis A and B combination vaccine.” See Pet’r Ex. 14 at
100.
Dr. Chaudry testified that symptom onset of eight days after vaccination is a “generally
accepted time frame for onset with respect to causation from vaccination.” Tr. 188. However,
he disagreed that petitioner was having small fiber symptoms eight days post-vaccination. Id.
Dr. Chaudry conceded that petitioner did experience some type of acute reaction to the Twinrix
vaccination that resulted in petitioner experiencing joint pains, C-reactive protein changes and
abnormal liver function tests but would not diagnose petitioner with small fiber neuropathy. Tr.
207.
The medical records demonstrate that petitioner initially experienced a likely initial
inflammatory reaction to the Twinrix vaccine, which manifested as joint pain, fatigue, and
weakness. See Pet’r Exs. 2, 5 & 6. Approximately eight days after his vaccination, he began to
experience symptoms associated with small fiber neuropathy, including paresthesias and
dysesthesias of the bilateral feet. Pet’r Ex. 14 at 100. Even as his joint pains began to dissipate,
petitioner’s symptoms related to the small fiber neuropathy continued. See Pet’r Ex. 9 at 1; Pet’r
Ex 8 at 5 (endorsing a cold sensation and numbness of his feet); Pet’r Ex 24 at 8 (decreased
sensation to pinprick in his feet and hands bilaterally); Pet’r Ex. 14 at 57 (joint and muscle pains
had resolved, but still experiencing paresthesias); and Pet’r Ex. 14 at 25 (“chronic numbness,
tingling, and paresthesias of his arms and legs, stocking-glove neuropathy due to post-hepatitis A
and B vaccine reaction.”).
Dr. Chaudry agreed with Dr. Kinsbourne that the onset of an autoimmune condition
occurring eight days post-vaccination is a medically acceptable timeframe. The literature
discussed above strongly indicates that a significant number of SFN cases are autoimmune, and I
have concluded that petitioner did develop autoimmune SFN which petitioner’s medical records
establish began approximately eight days post-vaccination, I find that petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence to establish Althen prong three.
3. Althen prong Two
Under Althen prong two, a petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
there is a “logical sequence of cause and effect showing that vaccination was the reason for the
injury.” Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1324 (quoting Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278). The sequence of cause
and effect must be “‘logical’ and legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.”
Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. The petitioner need not make a specific type of evidentiary showing,
i.e., “epidemiologic studies, rechallenge, the presence of pathological markers or genetic
43

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 44 of 47
predisposition, or general acceptance in the scientific or medical communities to establish a
logical sequence of cause and effect.” Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1325. Instead, petitioner may
satisfy his burden by presenting circumstantial evidence and reliable medical opinions. Id. at
1325-26.
The fact that petitioner has established that the combined hepatitis A & B vaccine can
cause SFN, and that petitioner has established that the onset of his SFN began within a medically
acceptable timeframe helps establish that he has also demonstrated the vaccine was the but-for
cause of his condition. “Evidence demonstrating petitioner’s injury occurred within a medically
acceptable time frame bolsters a link between the injury alleged and the vaccination at issue
under the “but-for” prong of the causation analysis.” Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326. There is a
“logical overlap between the three Althen prongs, and that evidence that goes to one prong may
also be probative for another prong.” Contreras, 107 Fed. Cl. at 295. Additionally, as I found
that petitioner established that he suffered autoimmune small fiber neuropathy with onset
occurring about eight days post vaccination, I also find that petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence that the March 18, 2015, Twinrix vaccination caused him to suffer small fiber
neuropathy. This finding is based on the petitioner’s medical records, the opinions of the
petitioner’s treating providers, the testimony of Dr. Bobenhouse, one of petitioner’s treating
neurologists, the opinion of Dr. Kinsbourne, and the medical literature.
The medical records show that two days after petitioner received the Twinrix vaccination,
he began to experience myalgias and arthralgias. Pet’r Ex. 4 at 1. Petitioner indicated that most
of his arthralgias were in his shoulders and hips. Id. Petitioner also reported he was fatigued.
Id. at 3. Dr. Bertolini diagnosed petitioner with “severe bilateral shoulder pain, bilateral hip pain,
secondary to possible viral etiology versus the possibility of a rheumatologic disorder, versus the
possibility of a reaction to hepatitis B vaccine. Id. On March 26, 2015, petitioner went to the
emergency department, reporting extreme fatigue, joint pains and achiness since receiving the
Twinrix vaccination. Pet’r Ex. 5 at 1. He was treated for pain and discharged. The following
day, March 27, 2015, petitioner returned to the emergency department, this time reporting that
his weakness and fatigued had worsened. Pet’r Ex. 6 at 4. Petitioner was admitted to the
hospital for monitoring. While in the hospital, infectious disease physician Dr. Gobbo noted that
petitioner’s symptoms began two days post-vaccination. Pet’r Ex. 7 at 2. Dr. Gobbo’s
impression was, “Vaccine reaction to the Twinrix causing a serum sickness-type reaction and
manifests mainly as polyarthralgia and severe fatigue.” Id. at 3. Both Drs. Bobenhouse and
Kinsbourne opined that petitioner initially experienced a systemic response to the vaccine, which
is not uncommon. See Tr. 31 (Dr. Bobenhouse testifying that petitioner’s initial reaction “was
more of a systemic type response initially.”); Tr. 50 (Dr. Kinsbourne testifying, “…joint pains is
a well-known, severe but transitory adverse effect of multiple vaccinations, so that’s consistent
with a vaccine reaction.”). Furthermore, Dr. Kinsbourne testified that petitioner’s elevated liver
enzymes and c-reactive protein levels that were measured when petitioner was admitted on
March 27, 2015, were consistent with an inflammatory response to a vaccine. See Pet’r Ex. 6 at
1-2; Tr. 54. Petitioner also had positive surface antibodies to hepatitis B, which would be
consistent with an individual who had received a hepatitis vaccine nine days prior and had an
immune response.
44

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 45 of 47
On April 3, 2015, petitioner reported that he began to experience paresthesias and
dysesthesias of his feet bilaterally. Pet’r Ex. 14 at 100. On April 17, 2015, petitioner told
neurologist, Dr. Sundell, that since his hospitalization “his feet have felt cold,” and “his hands
feel like big balloons or like Mario Brothers hands.” Pet’r Ex. 24 at 8. On examination,
petitioner’s motor strength was normal and Dr. Sundell was able to elicit reflexes, but petitioner
indicated that “he cannot feel the pin being sharp until above the ankles bilaterally” and that he
“cannot feel the pin being sharp until the elbows bilaterally.” Id. at 9. Dr. Sundell stated that
“there is no evidence for Guillain-Barre” but did opine that petitioner’s numbness in his hands
and feet may be from a sensory neuropathy. Id. at 8.
Petitioner’s numbness and tingling in a stocking-glove distribution continued, even after
his joint and muscle pain mostly resolved. For example, on September 1, 2016, petitioner had an
appointment with Dr. Gobbo, when he reported that he had improved joint pain, but was still
experiencing numbness “from the elbows down” and “from the knees down.” Pet’r Ex. 18 at 1.
Dr. Gobbo wrote, “The temporal relation of his symptoms, especially the fatigue and arthralgias,
shortly after the Twinrix vaccination, suggests an idiosyncratic reaction to the vaccine as the
most likely cause of his problems.” Id. Dr. Bertolini diagnosed petitioner with “stocking-glove
neuropathy due to post-hepatitis A and B vaccine reaction,” on January 26, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 14 at
25. When petitioner met with Dr. Bobenhouse on May 11, 2018, he had continued to experience
paresthesias and dysesthesias in his feet, forelegs, hands and forearms. Pet’r Ex. 43 at 1.
Even though petitioner’s skin fiber density was within normal limits, it did show small
and medium sized axonal swelling from the sample taken from his right ankle. Pet’r Ex. 22 at 9.
Importantly, his QST assessment was abnormal, showing “elevated vibratory, cooling, and heat-
pain thresholds,” which is consistent with small fiber neuropathy Pet’r Ex. 25 at 2. Consistent
with Hovaguimian and Devigili, diagnosing SFN can be achieved when a clinical examination is
consistent with small fiber neuropathy and done without a skin biopsy. See Pet’r Ex. 66 at 3
(“The history and physical examination findings still are considered the gold standard against
which all tests are compared when making a diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy.”); Resp’t Ex.
B, Tab 3 (“Our study showed that skin biopsy results can be normal in about 10% of patients
whom SFN is diagnosed by clinical and QST examination. This finding emphasizes that a
multimodal approach to SFN.”).
Dr. Bobenhouse credibly testified that he had diagnosed petitioner with small fiber
neuropathy based on petitioner’s description and history of pain, paresthesias and dysesthesias in
the hands and feet and clinical examination. Petitioner’s second EMG/NCS and normal strength
is also consistent with SFN. The sensory examination revealed decreased sensibility to pinprick
and light-touch in the hands and feet bilaterally. Tr. 8-13. Dr. Bobenhouse testified that
petitioner’s description of shock-like pains is consistent with non-length dependent small fiber
neuropathy and also described as a symptom some SFN patients experience in the Hovaguimian
article. Tr. 33-34; Pet’r Ex. 66 at 2 (“Many patients also report transient electric shock-like pain,
usually lasting only seconds, but quite severe and potentially multiple times per day.”). Dr.
Bobenhouse also testified that petitioner’s complaints of severe cold on his feet were also
consistent with a small fiber neuropathy process, as when the nerves that detect cold and hot are
damaged, they give off the wrong signals. Tr. 36. He concluded that the petitioner did have
small fiber neuropathy and that it was caused by the vaccine.
45

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 46 of 47
Petitioner’s presentation and disease course are also consistent with the presentation of
the petitioner as described in the Quirino opinion. The petitioner in Quirino received hepatitis B
and Tdap vaccines, and approximately 18-hours after vaccination felt sick, with symptoms
including headaches, muscle and joint aches, especially in his neck, shoulders, lower back and
legs. Quirino, 2023 WL 9229145, at *4. Additionally, the petitioner expressed a feeling of
exhaustion. Id. Approximately, six days after vaccination, petitioner began expressing concern
for unusual sensation in his hands, and numbness in his hands and feet. Id., at *5. Much like the
petitioner in Quirino, petitioner in this case experienced an initial reaction to the vaccine that
caused similar muscle and joint pains, and extreme fatigue. His symptoms also evolved to
numbness and tingling in his hands and feet in a stocking-glove distribution.
While it took three years before petitioner was diagnosed with SFN by Dr. Bobenhouse,
many of petitioner’s treating physicians opined that petitioner had some type of vaccine reaction.
See e.g. Pet’r Ex. 7 at 3 (“vaccine reaction to the Twinrix causing a serum sickness-type reaction
that manifests as polyarthralgias and severe fatigue.”); Pet’r Ex. 8 at 7 (“Differential diagnosis
includes a reactive phenomenon such as a post-vaccination…etiology…Sensory neuropathy?”);
Pet’r Ex. 14 at 102 (“paresthesias and dysesthesias of the feet bilaterally secondary to the
hepatitis A and B combination vaccine.”). Furthermore, his symptoms progressed consistently
with the description of small fiber symptoms as described in the medical literature. See Pet’r Ex.
57 at 2 (“Symptoms may be mild initially, with some patients complaining of vague discomfort
in one or both feet….The most bothersome and fairly typical symptom is burning pain in the feet
that extends proximally in a stocking-glove distribution and is often accompanied by stabbing or
aching pains, electric shock-like or pins-and needles sensations…”); Resp. Ex. D at 3 (“The
symptoms of SFN vary between patients both in their severity and their progression. Typically,
the sensory symptoms begin in the feet and progress proximally…eventually involving the
hands, ie, stocking-glove pattern…patients may comment on altered temperature sensibility.”).
While the initial symptoms appear to have been an inflammatory reaction to the vaccine or early
evidence of non-length dependent SFN symptoms as described in the literature, the length
dependent neuropathy symptoms became the predominant and persistent post vaccine symptoms.
Finally, even though Dr. Chaudry argued that petitioner did not have small fiber neuropathy, he
conceded that petitioner had “some acute sort of reaction with joint pains and some abnormal
liver function tests and CRP,” secondary to the Twinrix vaccine.” Tr. 206. He also agreed that
the physical exams that identified decreased pinprick from the elbows and knees down is
something that is found in small fiber neuropathy. Tr. 144
Finally, there was no evidence supporting an alternative cause to explain petitioner’s
numbness and tingling and sensitivity to cold in the extremities in a stocking glove distribution.
There is no evidence that the petitioner had another condition that could cause SFN and there
was no evidence of a prior infection prior to the development of small fiber neuropathy.
After a review of petitioner’s medical records, the medical literature and the testimony
from the experts including his treating physician, Dr. Bobenhouse, I find that petitioner has
presented preponderant evidence in support of Althen prong two. The petitioner established by a
preponderance of the evidence that he developed small fiber neuropathy and that a substantial
number of small fiber neuropathy cases are autoimmune in nature. As discussed above, petitioner
46

Case 1:16-vv-01630-UNJ Document 99 Filed 01/23/25 Page 47 of 47
also established that the hepatitis A and B vaccine can trigger an immune response that can give
rise to small fiber neuropathy through molecular mimicry to satisfy Althen prong one.
Accordingly, I have concluded that he developed persistent small fiber neuropathy symptoms
beginning eight days after the vaccination following an initial inflammatory response to the
vaccine, with no prior history of any similar symptoms or alternative causal explanation and that
he has established a logical cause and effect relationship with the Twinrix vaccine. Therefore,
petitioner has preponderantly established that there is logical sequence of cause and effect
between his vaccination and his small fiber neuropathy and satisfied Althen prong two.
VI. Conclusion
Upon review of all the evidence submitted in this matter, including the medical records,
experts’ opinions, medical literature and testimony, I conclude that petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence in support of his claim that the hepatitis A and B vaccine he received on
March 18, 2015, caused him to develop small fiber neuropathy. He is therefore entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act. A separate damages order will be issued shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
47