VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00897
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00897
Petitioner: Timothy Woods
Filed: 2017-06-30
Decided: 2023-11-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-10-11
Condition: optic neuritis
Outcome: denied
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Timothy Woods, a 36-year-old adult, received an influenza vaccination on October 11, 2014. Approximately nine months later, he began experiencing symptoms including headaches, eye pain, blurry vision, and decreased color vision. He sought treatment from optometrists and ophthalmologists, and was eventually seen by a neuro-ophthalmologist who suspected optic neuritis that may have been vaccination-related, though he could only objectively confirm mild optic neuropathy. Petitioner's claim was based on this alleged optic neuritis diagnosis. Respondent submitted expert opinions contesting the diagnosis. The Special Master issued a Finding of Fact concluding that Petitioner had not preponderantly demonstrated he suffered from optic neuritis, noting that objective examinations and testing did not support the diagnosis and that his visual acuity was normal during examinations. Petitioner was given an opportunity to pursue a claim based on a different injury but declined, stating his claim was solely based on optic neuritis. The Special Master then issued a decision denying compensation, finding that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a vaccine-caused injury. The case was dismissed. Petitioner sought review of the Special Master's decision, arguing the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed the Special Master's decision, finding that the Special Master properly weighed the evidence, applied the correct legal standards, and that his factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court denied Petitioner's motion for review and upheld the dismissal.

Theory of causation field:
Off-Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00897-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-03
Pages: 22
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/6/2022) regarding 101 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (amb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 1 of 22
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-897V
Filed: December 6, 2022
PUBLISHED
Special Master Horner
TIMOTHY WOODS,
Petitioner,
Finding of Fact; influenza (flu)
v.
vaccine; optic neuritis;
diagnosis.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for
petitioner.
Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDING OF FACT1
On June 30, 2017, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012)2, alleging that as a result of an
influenza (“flu”) vaccination he received on October 11, 2014, he suffered orbital eye
pain, decreased vision, vision loss, and optic neuritis. (ECF No. 1.) Alternatively,
petitioner alleges the subject flu vaccination significantly aggravated these conditions.
(Id.)
Respondent recommended that compensation be denied, arguing, inter alia, that
there is not preponderant evidence to support a finding that petitioner’s symptoms are
due to optic neuritis. (ECF No. 14, p. 6.) On March 30, 2021, a fact hearing was held
1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it
will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the document will be available to anyone with access
to the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to
redact medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it
will be redacted from public access.
2 Within this decision, all citations to § 300aa will be the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-10-34.
1

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 2 of 22
regarding the diagnosis issue in this case. For the reasons described below, I now find
that petitioner has not preponderantly established that he suffered optic neuritis.
I. Procedural History
This case was initially assigned to Special Master Millman. (ECF No. 4.)
Petitioner filed medical records in support of his claim on July 7, 2017, and an affidavit
on October 26, 2017. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) After reviewing petitioner’s materials,
respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report contesting entitlement on March 16, 2018. (ECF
No. 14.) Respondent argued, inter alia, that petitioner failed to establish that his
symptoms were caused by optic neuritis. (Id. at 6.)
In response to respondent’s Rule 4(c) report recommending against
compensation, petitioner filed a report from neuroimmunologist Lawrence Steinman,
M.D., on June 29, 2018. (ECF No. 18; Ex. 8.) On November 30, 2018, respondent filed
a responsive report from neuro-ophthalmologist Marc A. Bouffard, M.D. (ECF No. 21;
Ex. A.) Respondent also filed a responsive report from immunologist J. Lindsay
Whitton, M.D., Ph.D., on December 13, 2017. (ECF No. 23; Ex. C.) Petitioner then filed
a supplemental report from Dr. Steinman on February 22, 2019. (ECF No. 28; Ex. 36.)
On April 3, 2019, respondent filed supplemental reports from Dr. Bouffard and Dr.
Whitton. (ECF Nos. 34, 35; Exs. G, H.)
The case was subsequently reassigned to my docket on June 6, 2019. (ECF No.
37.) At the request of petitioner, I held a Rule 5 conference with the parties on October
8, 2019. (ECF No. 39.) During the conference, I noted that both of respondent’s
experts, Drs. Bouffard and Whitton, highlighted a statement from petitioner’s neuro-
ophthalmologist Matthew Thurtell, M.D, in which he stated, “Based on the history, I
suspect [petitioner] had an attack of optic neuritis.” (Id. at 1 (citing Ex. A, p. 3; Ex. C, p.
3).) Although Dr. Whitton stressed that Dr. Thurtell’s phrasing did not constitute a
diagnosis, I did not find it accurate to assert that a diagnosis was not made. (Id.)
However, I cautioned that this “does not mean that the basis for diagnosis is beyond
challenge[.]” (Id. at 1-2.) I further noted petitioner’s nine-month delay in seeking
treatment makes it more difficult “to assess . . . the nature of petitioner’s optical
condition.” (Id. at 2.) Given the sparse factual record in this case and that petitioner’s
condition appears to be relatively mild, I encouraged the parties to explore litigative risk
settlement and recommended that if the parties wished to continue litigation that
petitioner seek a report from a neuro-ophthalmologist to provide a more in-depth
rebuttal to Dr. Bouffard and/or undergo neuroimaging. (Id. at 3.)
On December 10, 2019, respondent filed a status report indicating that he was
not interested in settlement negotiations and intended to continue defending the case.
(ECF No. 41.) Thereafter, on August 7, 2020, petitioner submitted an expert report from
ophthalmologist Todd Allen Lefkowitz, M.D. (ECF No. 54; Ex. 40.) On the same date,
petitioner filed a status report indicating that he decided not to undergo neuroimaging.
(ECF No. 55.) On October 19, 2020, respondent submitted a supplemental report from
Dr. Bouffard responding to Dr. Lefkowitz. (ECF No. 59; Ex. J.) Petitioner subsequently
2

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 3 of 22
filed a status report requesting that the case be scheduled for an entitlement hearing.
(ECF No. 60.)
I held a status conference with the parties on December 4, 2020. (ECF No. 61.)
I advised that “it may be reasonable to first resolve on the written record the question of
whether there is preponderant evidence that petitioner suffered optic neuritis” before
proceeding to an entitlement hearing. (Id.) However, I noted that “petitioner may wish
to have an opportunity to testify himself and so a more limited fact hearing may also be
appropriate before proceeding to such a fact finding.” (Id.) I added that “following the
fact hearing, the parties would be permitted to consult with their experts to determine
whether they wish to submit supplemental expert reports before resolving the question
of diagnosis on the written record.” (Id. at n.1.) Shortly thereafter, the parties confirmed
availability for a fact hearing in March 2021. (ECF No. 62.)
On January 19, 2021, I issued a prehearing order setting a video fact hearing for
March 30, 2021, wherein I indicated that prehearing submissions were not required but
that the parties could file a joint submission clarifying any issues if they wished. (ECF
No. 63.) Respondent then filed an individual prehearing submission on March 23, 2021,
arguing for the dismissal of petitioner’s case. (ECF No. 64.) On the same date,
petitioner moved to strike respondent’s prehearing submission because it was not jointly
filed as described in the prehearing order. (ECF No. 67.) Respondent filed his
response to petitioner’s motion on March 29, 2021 (ECF No. 68), and petitioner filed his
reply on the same date (ECF No. 69). In his response, respondent deferred to the
court’s discretion regarding petitioner’s motion to strike. (Id.) However, he emphasized
his desire to preserve his argument for appeal that he should have been permitted to
present testimony from his expert, Dr. Bouffard, because the fact hearing was intended
to focus on the question of diagnosis. (Id.) Respondent indicated that “he was
amenable when the court proposed a fact hearing on the issue of diagnosis” but
represented that he “was not aware that expert testimony on the issue of diagnosis
would not be heard.” (Id. at 2.)
I issued an order granting petitioner’s motion to strike on March 29, 2021. (ECF
No. 70.) I noted that although the “fact hearing is prompted by the idea of resolving
diagnosis as a threshold question as respondent suggests, the purpose of the hearing is
only to elicit the fact testimony petitioner may additionally wish to have considered.” (Id.
at 2.) I stressed that the prior order proposing the fact hearing explicitly stated that the
fact hearing would not constitute the close of the evidentiary record regarding diagnosis
and that the parties would be permitted to continue the exchange of expert reports
before resolving petitioner’s diagnosis on the written record. (Id. (citing ECF No. 61,
n.1).) I concluded that respondent’s request to elicit testimony from Dr. Bouffard was
premature and indicated that if respondent still felt expert testimony was necessary to
resolve the issue of diagnosis following the opportunity to submit supplemental expert
reports, respondent should raise such an argument at that time. (Id.)
A fact hearing was held on March 30, 2021, at which petitioner and his wife,
Tonya Woods, testified. (ECF No. 73 (Transcript of Proceedings (“Tr.”)).) Following the
3

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 4 of 22
hearing, petitioner filed outstanding medical and employment records identified during
the hearing and a statement of completion. (See ECF Nos. 71, 74, 81-83.) The parties
subsequently conferred regarding the need for supplemental reports. (ECF No. 84.)
Respondent expressed interest in filing a supplemental report, and petitioner indicated
his desire to reserve the right to file a supplemental report following the submission of
respondent’s expert report. (Id.) On October 15, 2021, respondent filed a supplemental
report from Dr. Bouffard. (ECF No. 86; Ex. L.) Petitioner requested a status conference
to determine next steps in the case. (ECF No. 87.)
On March 1, 2022, I held a status conference with the parties. (ECF No. 88.) I
shared my view that the factual record had been sufficiently developed to fairly resolve
the issue of diagnosis. (Id. at 1.) I also indicated that my preliminary view that
entitlement in this case should also be resolved on the written record pursuant to
Vaccine Rule 8(d). (Id.) The parties provided input on whether the case should
proceed directly to a comprehensive resolution of entitlement or whether it would be
appropriate to first issue a fact finding regarding the issue of diagnosis. (Id.)
Respondent expressed a preference for first issuing a finding of fact regarding diagnosis
and noted that he would not revisit his settlement posture without guidance on the
threshold issue. (Id.) Conversely, petitioner indicated a preference for proceeding to
resolution of entitlement pursuant to Vaccine Rule 8(d). (Id.) Petitioner expressed
concern that issuance of a finding of fact would not guarantee productive settlement
discussions and could delay resolution of the case. (Id.) However, on March 30, 2022,
the parties filed a joint status report indicating that petitioner was open to either
proposed course of action. (ECF No. 89.) Respondent reiterated his preference for a
briefed finding of fact on diagnosis. (Id.)
The parties filed simultaneous briefs regarding the factual issue of diagnosis on
July 1, 2022. (ECF Nos. 92, 93.) Concurrent with his initial brief, petitioner filed a
medical article examining optic disc cupping following optic neuritis. (ECF No. 91; G.
Rebolleda et al., Optic Disc Cupping After Optic Neuritis Evaluated with Optic
Coherence Tomography, 23 EYE 890 (Ex. 47).) On September 2, 2022, the parties
submitted concurrent responsive briefs. (ECF Nos. 95, 97.) Contemporaneous with his
responsive brief, respondent submitted a supplemental expert report from Dr. Bouffard.
(ECF No. 96; Ex. M.)
Petitioner moved to strike respondent’s responsive brief and Dr. Bouffard’s
supplemental expert report on September 2, 2022. (ECF No. 98.) On September 7,
2022, respondent filed a response to petitioner’s motion and a cross-motion to strike the
Rebolleda et al. medical article that was newly filed with petitioner’s initial brief. (ECF
No. 99.) Petitioner filed his reply on September 7, 2022. (ECF No. 100.)
This matter is now ripe for a finding of fact regarding the issue of diagnosis as
well as a ruling on the parties’ competing motions to strike the additional evidence filed
with their respective briefs.
4

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 5 of 22
II. Factual History
a. As Reflected in Medical Records
Petitioner was thirty-six years old when he received the flu vaccine on October
11, 2014. (Ex. 4, p. 1.) He received the flu vaccine at UnityPoint Health Jones
Regional Medical Center, where he worked as a respiratory therapist. (Id.) Petitioner’s
pre-vaccination medical history is significant for depression, seasonal affective disorder,
stress, cigarette smoking, respiratory infections, and gastroesophageal reflux disease.
(See, e.g., Ex. 1., p. 1; Ex. 2, pp. 19-21, 28-29; Ex. 3, pp. 9, 14.) Although petitioner
wore glasses for myopia (nearsightedness) prior to vaccination, he did not appear to
have any significant preexisting eye problems. (See Ex. 44, p. 7 (routine eye
examination on October 3, 2012); see also Ex. 3, p. 9 (Dr. Thurtell noting petitioner’s
history of myopia).
Nearly nine months after vaccination, on June 29, 2015, petitioner sought care
from optometrist Bryan Hoke, O.D. (Ex. 44, p. 5.) Petitioner reported a nine-month
history of headaches, blurry vision and decreased color vision in the left eye, and pain in
his left eye and left temple. (Id.) Petitioner’s eye examination was normal. (Id.) Dr.
Hoke referred petitioner to the Wolfe Eye Clinic for further evaluation. (Id. at 5, 2.)
On July 6, 2015, petitioner presented to ophthalmologist LeAnn Larson, M.D., at
the Wolfe Eye Clinic with complaints of poor color vision, difficulty seeing at night, left
orbital pain, and left eye pain. (Ex. 1, p. 1.) Petitioner reported difficulty seeing red and
green from his left eye as well as sinus pressure with radiation to the left temple area
and the left side of his neck. (Id.) Petitioner described periorbital and temporal pain.
(Id.) Dr. Larson indicated that petitioner had localized discomfort and could “create
some discomfort if he presses in the middle of his brow” or “over the left nasal aspect of
his nose.” (Id.) Petitioner also reported that “his blood pressure gets high at times.”
(Id.) Dr. Larson noted that petitioner’s symptoms began after receiving the flu vaccine
nine months prior. (Id.) She further noted that nine months prior, petitioner experienced
left eye pain for about one day, after which petitioner’s “vision seemed to decrease for
about a month.” (Id.) After that point, petitioner reported that his vision remained
largely the same. (Id.) However, he explained that his vision would become blurry
when he got angry or when he mowed the lawn. (Id.) He also described an episode of
eye pain “[t]hat lasted a couple of days a couple of weeks ago.” (Id.) Petitioner shared
his concern that he may have optic neuritis based on his own internet research. (Id.)
During the visit, Dr. Larson performed a comprehensive eye examination. Dr.
Larson found that petitioner’s vision was “excellent,” measuring 20/20 in the right eye
and 20/25 in the left eye. (Ex. 1, pp. 1-2.) The Ishihara Test, which measures color
vision, revealed normal color vision in both of petitioner’s eyes with petitioner correctly
identifying all color plates used in the test. (Id. at 2.) Dr. Larson noted that petitioner’s
pupils were “[e]qual, round, and normally reactive” and did not show evidence of
Relative Afferent Pupillary Defect (“RAPD”). (Id.) Petitioner’s intraocular pressure in
both eyes was normal. (Id.) However, Dr. Larson observed that the optic nerve fiber
5

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 6 of 22
layer in petitioner’s left eye was thinning, which she noted was “more prominent
temporally.” (Id. at 1.) She also documented granular changes in both eyes and “poorly
defined macular reflexes” in petitioner’s left eye. (Id. at 2.) Dr. Larson assessed
petitioner as having insignificant cataracts due to minor peripheral lens opacities,
granular changes in the macula, and retinal pigment epithelium changes. (Id.) She
recommended petitioner receive a neuro-ophthalmology consult. The next day, on July
7, 2015, petitioner called Dr. Larson’s office to add that “[he] did not mention that he has
a sinus infection and is thinking that this has been chronic for 9 months.” (Id. at 11.)
Over the next few months, petitioner saw his primary care physician, Charles
Vernon, for complaints unrelated to his vision problems. On August 4, 2015, petitioner
visited Dr. Vernon for a spot on the back of his throat. (Ex. 2, p. 14.) The review of
systems for this visit was positive for subjective visual disturbances, and Dr. Vernon
noted that petitioner had seen an ophthalmologist. (Id. at 16.) The next month, on
September 29, 2015, petitioner returned to Dr. Vernon for an upper respiratory tract
infection. (Id. at 9-10.) Petitioner reported that he resumed smoking about a pack of
cigarettes per day about eight or nine months prior when his wife had a stroke. (Id. at
11.) He also reported being under increased stress due to his wife’s health issues and
nursing school responsibilities and requested “something to help him with the stress.”
(Id. at 11-12.) On October 28, 2015, petitioner again visited Dr. Vernon for his chronic
allergic rhinitis. (Id. at 5.) At this visit, Dr. Vernon was primarily concerned about
petitioner’s stress level and cigarette smoking. (Id. at 5-6.) Under review of systems,
Dr. Vernon noted that petitioner was scheduled for a neuro-ophthalmology consult “to
evaluate for the possibility of an optic neuritis disorder.” (Id. at 8.)
On November 4, 2015, several months after petitioner’s ophthalmology visit with
Dr. Larson, petitioner saw neuro-ophthalmologist Matthew Thurtell, M.D. (Ex. 3, p. 9.)
Petitioner reported that after receiving the flu vaccine one year earlier, he experienced a
headache about one or two days after the shot, followed by progressively worsening
ability to see color and cloudy vision “over days.” (Id.) Petitioner explained that these
symptoms lasted for about five months before they improved to the point where it was
not “as noticeable.” (Id.) He described flares of decreased vision associated with
exercise and frustration. (Id.) He also reported experiencing left orbital and temple pain
similar to the headache he had after the flu shot a couple of times a week. (Id.) Dr.
Thurtell noted that petitioner’s description of symptoms was consistent with “a classic
Uhthoff phenomenon” in his left eye. (Id. at 14.) He also documented petitioner’s
history of smoking cigarettes. (Id. at 10.) Upon examination, petitioner’s vision
measured 20/20 in both eyes. (Id. at 11, 14.) Additionally, petitioner again correctly
identified all fourteen color plates used in the Ishihara Test, though he informed Dr.
Thurtell that “it is more difficult to read the color plates” in his left eye. (Id.) Petitioner’s
examination revealed no evidence of APD. (Id.) Dr. Thurtell noted that petitioner’s left
eye had a “[s]luggish” pupil response (id. at 11), but in another note from the same visit
recorded that his pupils were “briskly reactive” without evidence of RAPD (id. at 14). He
also observed “mild temporal rim pallor” in petitioner’s left disc. (Id. at 12.)
6

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 7 of 22
While at Dr. Thurtell’s office, petitioner underwent an Optical Coherence
Tomography (“OCT”) scan of the optic nerves, which revealed inferotemporal retinal
nerve fiber layer (“RNFL”) thinning and diffuse ganglion cell layer (“GCL”) thinning in
petitioner’s left eye. (Ex. 3, pp. 13, 14.) Dr. Thurtell noted that petitioner’s “neuro-
ophthalmic evaluation showed findings consistent with a mild optic neuropathy” in the
left eye.” (Id. at 14.) He stated, “Based on the history, I suspect [petitioner] had an
attack of optic neuritis [in the left eye].” (Id.) He further noted that “[t]he attack began
shortly after a flu vaccine and, thus, the attack may have been vaccination-related.”
(Id.) Dr. Thurtell specifically added “[o]ptic neuritis, left” to petitioner’s active problem list
and included “[o]ptic neuritis, left” in the assessment section of the encounter with
accompanying ICD billing codes. (Id. at 10, 13.) He recommended a brain MRI with
contrast “to evaluate for underlying demyelinating disease,” but petitioner indicated that
he preferred not to pursue a brain MRI because he was not experiencing other
neurological symptoms at that time. (Id. at 14.)
Petitioner returned to Dr. Vernon on January 27, 2016. (Ex. 2, p. 2.) During the
visit, petitioner requested Dr. Vernon sign a release for him to abstain from future flu
vaccines due to petitioner’s concern that the flu vaccine caused his attack of optic
neuritis. (Id. at 4.) Dr. Vernon noted that it was a “reasonable request” but believed
there were other factors that could have contributed to petitioner’s condition. (Id.) Dr.
Vernon opined that petitioner’s cigarette use was “probably a more common cause of
optic neuritis” and noted that petitioner’s blood pressure was slightly elevated. (Id.)
Over a year later, on March 30, 2017, petitioner presented to Peterson Eye Care.
(Ex. 6, p. 1.) Petitioner’s eye examination indicated normal vision, with both eyes
measuring 20/20. (Id.) The one-page handwritten record appears to recommend
petitioner follow up with a neuro-ophthalmologist for optic neuritis. (Id.)
On December 1, 2017, petitioner followed up with Dr. Larson at the Wolfe Eye
Clinic for ongoing intermittent left eye pain. (Ex. 42, p. 1.) Petitioner reported episodes
of blurry vision and difficulty seeing colors. (Id. at 1-2.) Dr. Larson performed an OCT
scan, which showed cup-to-disc asymmetry with both eyes being thin but the left eye
thinner than the right. (Id. at 2.) She recommended petitioner follow up with neuro-
ophthalmology. (Id.)
Petitioner did not return to the Wolfe Eye Clinic until February 18, 2020, when he
saw Cory Bower, O.D. (Ex. 42, p. 4.) Petitioner reported that his vision in his left eye
remained “slightly dim” but denied any pain. (Id.) Petitioner underwent another OCT
scan, which again showed abnormal RNFL inferotemporal thinning in his left eye. (Id. at
5.) Dr. Bower noted that this finding is consistent with optic neuritis. (Id.) He concluded
that petitioner’s condition was “stable” and “[i]nsignificant” in terms of overall severity.
(Id. at 5, 6.)
Petitioner did not submit any medical records relevant to his condition beyond
February 18, 2020.
7

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 8 of 22
b. As Reflected in Petitioner’s Affidavit
Petitioner filed an affidavit on October 26, 2017. (Ex. 7.) He averred that prior to
receiving the flu vaccine on October 11, 2014, he was in good health. (Id. at 1.) At the
time of vaccination, petitioner was working full-time as a respiratory therapist and
attending nursing school as an evening student. (Id.) He received the flu vaccine
because it was required by his employer. (Id.) He attested that after receiving the flu
vaccine, he started to feel pain around his eyes and in his forehead. (Id.) Additionally,
it became difficult for him to see at night while driving and to differentiate between red
and green colors. (Id.) Petitioner averred that these symptoms began “in October
2014.” (Id. at 2.)
Although petitioner attested that the onset of his symptoms began in October
2014, he explained that he delayed seeking treatment for several reasons.3 (Id.)
Petitioner explained that his wife unexpectedly had a stroke on January 1, 2015, “which
left her hospitalized for a long period of time and suffering from permanent effects.” (Id.)
He averred that prior to her stroke, his wife was the primary caregiver of their children
and “took care of all aspects involving [their] household.” (Id.) Following his wife’s
stroke, petitioner attested that he became the primary caregiver for his wife and
children. (Id.) Additionally, petitioner stated that he took a leave of absence from his
job as a respiratory therapist to care for his family. (Id.)
Petitioner explained that once he returned to work at the Jones Regional Medical
Center, he “informally consulted about [his] symptoms with doctors and nurses.” (Id.)
Petitioner stated that he “saw no need to make a formal appointment with a specialist”
because he “informally interacted and consulted with doctors and nurses about [his]
symptoms on a frequent basis.” (Id.) He also noted that his symptoms did not get
worse during the winter of 2014 and spring of 2015. (Id.) Given that his symptoms
“remained relatively constant,” he did not feel inclined to see a specialist. (Id.)
Petitioner stated that when his symptoms progressed in June 2015 and his personal life
“had stabilized,” he made time to visit an eye specialist. (Id.)
c. As Reflected in Testimony
Petitioner testified prior to receiving the flu vaccine on October 11, 2014, he was
in good health, though he got bronchitis once a year and started wearing prescription
glasses in his twenties. (Tr. 34.) He testified that he received the flu vaccine because
both his employer and his nursing program recommended that healthcare providers
receive the flu vaccine to protect patients. (Id. at 9.) After receiving the flu vaccine,
petitioner testified that he did not remember any initial side effects. (Id. at 10.) He
recalled that “a week or two” after receiving the vaccine, he had difficulty seeing green
while attending a sporting event. (Id.) He described his color vision in his left eye as
“disintegrating.” (Id.) After that point, he began having difficulty seeing red. (Tr. 10.)
3 Petitioner averred that he did not seek treatment for his vision problems until July 6, 2015, when he saw
Dr. Larson. (Ex. 7, p. 2.) However, the medical records indicate that he first visited Dr. Hoke with
complaints of blurry vision and difficulty seeing colors on June 29, 2015. (Ex. 44, p. 5.)
8

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 9 of 22
Following the issues with color vision, petitioner testified that he began experiencing
orbital pain around his left eye and episodes where it felt like he was opening his eye
underwater.4 (Id. at 11.)
Although petitioner did not seek treatment for several months after he first
noticed symptoms, he recalled speaking with his wife and nurses and doctors at the
Jones Regional Medical Center about his vision problems. (Tr. 11.) Petitioner stated
that his coworkers advised him to “get seen outside of the facility.” (Id. at 12.)
Petitioner testified that he delayed seeking treatment for his eye problems for several
reasons, including his fear that something was “seriously wrong” and his competing
work and school responsibilities. (Id. at 13.) However, he averred that the primary
reason he delayed treatment was due to his wife’s stroke on January 1, 2015. (Id.)
Petitioner testified that the stroke left his wife with several physical disabilities, requiring
him to become the primary caretaker for his wife and their two children. (Id. at 16, 18.)
Prior to her stroke, petitioner’s wife took care of their two children and performed
household chores. (Tr. 14, 18.) Petitioner testified that following his wife’s stroke, he
took six to eight weeks of leave from work and briefly delayed returning to nursing
school for the spring 2015 semester. (Id. at 17-18; 40-41, 50.) He testified that he
returned to school by the end of January and resumed work in either February or March
2015. (Id. at 17-18, 50.)
During this time, petitioner was more focused on his wife and household
responsibilities than on his vision issues. (Tr. 19.) He stated that his orbital pain was
not constant, though at times it was severe, and he periodically experienced sudden
bouts of cloudy vision “depending on [his] stress level.” (Id.) His color vision remained
the same. (Id.)
Petitioner testified that after he finished his nursing program at Kirkwood
Community College in mid-May 2015, he made an appointment to address his eye
problems. (Tr. 21.) He recalled seeing an optometrist in June 2015 and getting a
referral to the Wolfe Eye Clinic. (Id. at 21-22.) When petitioner first saw Dr. Larson at
the Wolfe Eye Clinic, he recalled being “scared” after Dr. Larson’s “demeanor changed”
during his eye examination. (Id. at 22.) He testified that Dr. Larson told him that he
could have optic neuritis, though she was unsure, and that he needed to see a neuro-
ophthalmologist to obtain a diagnosis. (Id. at 23.) Petitioner explained that he then had
to wait for an available appointment with a neuro-ophthalmologist at another facility. (Id.
at 26.)
During petitioner’s appointment with Dr. Thurtell in November 2015, petitioner
recalled Dr. Thurtell advising him that he had optic neuritis and that “in his experience,
the influenza vaccine could be linked to this.” (Tr. 26; see also id. at 58.)
At the time of the hearing, petitioner testified that he did not recall the last time he
experienced eye pain or blurry vision and that his color vision had improved
4 Petitioner later distinguished his orbital pain from sinus pressure associated with the sinus infection he
was experiencing at the time of his visit to Dr. Larson on July 6, 2015. (Tr. 57.)
9

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 10 of 22
significantly, though he still struggled with red and green colors appearing dull. (Tr. 27.)
He further testified that his right eye “does a really good job compensating for [his] left
eye.” (Id.) Petitioner stated that he was a current smoker at the time of the hearing.
(Id. at 55.) Additionally, he testified that he was diagnosed with high blood pressure and
that he takes hydrochlorothiazide, a blood pressure medication. (Id. at 38.)
Petitioner’s wife, Tonya Woods, also provided testimony. (Tr. 60-67.) Ms.
Woods’s understanding is that petitioner was diagnosed with optic neuritis. (Id. at 61.)
She recalled petitioner having trouble seeing colors and experiencing eye pain “once in
a while” after receiving the flu vaccine in October 2014. (Id.) She noted that petitioner
typically avoids dealing with health concerns and stress. (Id. at 62.) She testified that
she “couldn’t do anything” after her stroke in 2015 and that petitioner had to take over
all household and childcare responsibilities. (Id. at 64, 67.)
III. Expert Opinions5
a. Petitioner’s Experts
i. Lawrence Steinman, M.D.
In support of his claim, petitioner presented an expert opinion by
neuroimmunologist Lawrence Steinman, M.D. Dr. Steinman received his medical
degree from Harvard in 1973. (Ex. 9, p. 1.) He is board-certified in neurology and has
practiced adult and pediatric neurology at Stanford University. (Id. at 2; Ex. 8, p. 1.) Dr.
Steinman has treated patients, both adults and children, who suffered from various
forms of inflammatory neuropathy, including transverse myelitis, acute disseminated
encephalomyelitis, neuromyelitis optica, multiple sclerosis, and others. (Ex. 8, p. 1.) He
is currently a professor of neurology at Stanford University. (Id.; Ex. 9, p. 1.) Dr.
Steinman’s research focuses on how the immune system attacks the nervous system,
and he has published on various topics involving vaccines and neurological disorders,
including molecular mimicry. (Ex. 8, p. 1; Ex. 9, pp. 5-46.) He holds numerous
American and European patents, including several U.S. patents relating to vaccines.
(Ex. 8, p. 3; Ex. 9, pp. 2-3.)
The bulk of Dr. Steinman’s expert reports focused on the mechanism of
causation. (See generally Ex. 8; Ex. 36.) Dr. Steinman only briefly discussed the
diagnosis dispute in his first supplemental report. In response to Dr. Bouffard’s opinion
on diagnosis, Dr. Steinman stressed that “Dr. Bouffard opines from a different context
than that of the treating physicians.” (Ex. 36, p. 1.) Dr. Steinman deferred to the
diagnosis made by Dr. Thurtell, the “boots on the ground” treating neuro-
ophthalmologist. (Id.)
5 The expert reports offered by the parties discussed issues beyond the diagnosis dispute. For purposes
of this fact finding, only aspects of the expert reports related to diagnosis are discussed.
10

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 11 of 22
ii. Todd A. Lefkowitz, M.D.
Petitioner also presented an expert report from board-certified ophthalmologist
Dr. Lefkowitz. (Ex. 40.) Dr. Lefkowitz received his medical degree from New York
University School of Medicine in 1977 and completed an ophthalmology residency at
Georgetown University in 1981. (Id. at 1; Ex. 41, pp. 1-2.) He has practiced
ophthalmology since 1981 and received his board certification in 1982. (Ex. 40, p. 1;
Ex. 41, p. 1.) He currently practices as an ophthalmologist at Walman Eye Center as
well as an ophthalmology hospitalist and trauma specialist at Banner Hospitals in
Arizona. (Ex. 41, p. 1.) He also serves as a clinical assistant professor at the University
of Arizona Medical School. (Id.) He performs various types of eye surgeries, including
LASIK and cataract surgeries. (Ex. 40, p. 1.) Dr. Lefkowitz did not discuss any
experience in neuro-ophthalmology in his expert report or curriculum vitae. (See
generally Ex. 40; Ex. 41.)
In response to Dr. Bouffard’s report proposing alternative etiologies for
petitioner’s symptoms, Dr. Lefkowitz asserted that petitioner did not suffer from
ischemic, post-inflammatory, glaucomatous, or toxic etiologies. (Ex. 40, p. 3.) He
explained that these etiologies present with accompanying signs. (Id.) Glaucoma
presents with high intraocular pressure and distinctive visual field defects, post-
inflammatory processes present with peri-orbital pain, ischemic etiologies present with
cardiovascular disease, and toxic etiologies are accompanied by exposure to toxic
substances. (Id.) Regarding glaucoma, he concluded that petitioner’s visual testing did
not suggest glaucoma. (Id.) He concluded that petitioner did not suffer from any other
alternative etiology other than optic neuritis without further explanation. (Id.) He did not
address any of Dr. Bouffard’s specific concerns about petitioner’s presentation being
inconsistent with optic neuritis. (See id.)
b. Respondent’s Experts
i. Marc A. Bouffard, M.D.6
Respondent offered an expert opinion from Dr. Bouffard, a neurologist who
specializes in neuro-ophthalmology. Dr. Bouffard received his medical degree from
Tufts University School of Medicine in 2012. (Ex. B, p. 2.) He then completed a
neurology residency at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a neuro-ophthalmology
fellowship at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, and a fellowship in Advanced
General and Autoimmune Neurology at the Massachusetts General Hospital. (Id.; Ex.
A, p. 2.) He currently practices at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center where he
routinely sees patients with optic neuritis. (Ex. A, p. 2.) He has written multiple peer-
reviewed publications in the field of neuro-ophthalmology, including two articles on
neuroimaging modalities in neuro-ophthalmic disease. (Id.; Ex. B, pp. 2-3.)
6 As discussed in a later section, Dr. Bouffard’s supplemental expert report filed as Exhibit M is not being
considered. Therefore, this report is not discussed.
11

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 12 of 22
As an initial matter, Dr. Bouffard explained the difference between optic
neuropathy and optic neuritis. (Ex. A, p. 4.) He indicated that optic neuropathy refers
broadly to optic nerve dysfunction, while optic neuritis refers specifically to “immune-
mediated inflammation of the optic nerve.” (Id.) He suggested that optic nerve damage
can be caused by several different processes, including but not limited to inflammatory
disorders such as optic neuritis. (Id.)
Regarding the typical clinical course for optic neuritis, Dr. Bouffard noted that “its
presenting features are well defined.” (Ex. A, p. 5.) According to Dr. Bouffard,
individuals suffering from optic neuritis usually suffer pain “centered on and around the
globe” that is exacerbated with eye movements. (Id. at 4.) He explained that optic
neuritis patients typically experience pain “up to a few days” before vision loss occurs
and resolves “within a few days of the onset of vision loss.” (Id.) He opined that pain
lasting longer than seven days after vision loss “should raise suspicion for alternate
diagnoses.” (Id.)
To provide further guidance on the clinical features of optic neuritis, Dr. Bouffard
discussed the optic neuritis treatment trial (“ONTT”), which examined 457 patients from
1988 to 1991. (Ex. A, p. 5.) The ONTT demonstrated that “visual recovery began
within a month of the initial attack” and that “[p]ain is typically present for under a week,
resolving more rapidly than vision loss.” (Id.) Dr. Bouffard opined that ongoing
inflammation is “extremely rare,” and that most individuals experience “discrete attacks.”
(Id.) He further noted that “subtle functional abnormalities of the optic nerve” may
continue after recovery from optic neuritis. (Id.) Specifically, individuals who recover
from optic neuritis may continue to experience “[s]ubtle defects of color vision and
contrast sensitivity.” (Id.) Additionally, patients may have “[e]pisodic visual
deterioration” associated with elevated body temperature, known as Uthoff’s
phenomenon. (Ex. A, pp. 5-6.) Dr. Bouffard emphasized that “Uthoff’s phenomenon is
painless, provoked by high temperature, transient, and not specific to demyelinating
optic neuritis.” (Id. at 6 (emphasis removed).) He also suggested that patients who
recover from optic neuritis typically have mild atrophy of the nerve that may be shown
by RNFL measurements or OCT studies. (Id.)
Although Dr. Bouffard agreed that petitioner “clearly has a mild optic neuropathy
affecting the left eye,” he cautioned that a diagnosis of optic neuritis could not be
“confidently established” due to the sparse factual record. (Ex. A, p. 6; see also Ex. J,
p. 1 (stating that “there is no evidence that petitioner had optic neuritis”) (emphasis
removed).) Dr. Bouffard was particularly concerned that petitioner was not examined
close in time to the onset of his condition and that petitioner never underwent
neuroimaging. (Ex. A, pp. 6, 9.) Given that petitioner was not examined close in time to
onset of his condition, Dr. Bouffard concluded that “the expected course of optic neuritis
could not be objectively confirmed.” (Id. at 9.) Additionally, Dr. Bouffard expressed
concern that petitioner did not undergo neuroimaging to rule out a compressive lesion,
such as an aneurism, optic nerve sheath meningioma, or optic nerve glioma. (Id. at 7,
9.) He also stressed that petitioner’s treaters did not record a detailed history for head
trauma or initiate a work-up for syphilis. (Id.)
12

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 13 of 22
Dr. Bouffard further opined that petitioner’s clinical presentation was inconsistent
with optic neuritis. Significantly, Dr. Bouffard asserted that the nature of petitioner’s eye
pain did not fit with an optic neuritis diagnosis. (Ex. A, p. 7; Ex. J, pp. 1-2; Ex. L, p. 2.)
Dr. Bouffard noted that “[p]atients with optic neuritis typically have several days of eye
pain, exacerbated by eye movements, preceding or accompanying the onset of visual
abnormalities.” (Ex. A, p. 7.) Dr. Bouffard acknowledged that petitioner reported
experiencing eye pain for about one day at the time of onset of his subjective
dyschromatopsia or visual disturbances,7 but stressed that petitioner continued to report
frequent orbital pain thereafter. (Id.; see also Ex. J, pp. 1-2 (stressing that “[t]he pain of
optic neuritis is transient and does not recur without another attack”); Ex. L, p. 1 (noting
that the pain with optic neuritis usually lasts for less than a week). Specifically, Dr.
Bouffard referenced petitioner’s visit to Dr. Thurtell over a year after the onset of his
condition during which he reported experiencing episodic eye pain three times a week.
(Ex. J, pp. 1-2; Ex. L, p. 1.) He noted that relapse of optic neuritis would not occur as
frequently as the episodes petitioner reported. (Ex. J, pp. 1-2.) Further, if petitioner
were experiencing frequent attacks of optic neuritis, Dr. Bouffard opined that his
examination at Dr. Thurtell’s office would have shown abnormalities consistent with
optic neuritis attacks. (Id. at 2.)
Additionally, Dr. Bouffard emphasized that petitioner was able to elicit or worsen
his pain through palpation of the “brow” and the “nasal aspect of his nose,” which is
inconsistent with optic neuritis. (Ex. A, p. 7 (citing Ex. 1, p. 1); see also Ex. J, p. 1
(citing Ex. 1, p. 1) (reiterating that petitioner’s pain associated with “pressing on soft
tissue/bony structures around the orbit” is inconsistent with pain caused by optic nerve
inflammation); Ex. L, p. 1 (stating that “[t]ouching the bones of the brow or nose in no
way upsets the optic nerve and is obviously indicative of a source of pain other than
optic neuritis”) (emphasis removed).) Dr. Bouffard offered trochleitis, a supraorbital
neuropathy, or posterior scleritis as more likely causes for the orbital eye pain petitioner
described. (Ex. A, pp. 7, 9.) He also pointed out that petitioner reported sinus
discomfort. (Id. at 7.)
Dr. Bouffard also opined that the appearance of petitioner’s optic nerve did not
comport with a diagnosis of optic neuritis. (Ex. A, p. 7.) While Dr. Bouffard
acknowledged that petitioner had an increased cup to disc ratio in the left eye, he
stressed that this is uncommon in optic neuritis. (Id. (citing William Stewart & Karen
Reid, Incidence of systemic and ocular disease that may mimic low-tension glaucoma,
1(1) J. GLAUCOMA 27 (1992) (Ex. F-11); Jonathan Trobe et al., Nonglaucomatous
excavation of the optic disc, 98 ARCH. OPHTHALMOL. 1046 (1980) (Ex. F-12); see also
7 In a later report, Dr. Bouffard asserted that petitioner’s orbital pain developed weeks after his visual
disturbances initially occurred, while pain with optic neuritis typically precedes or accompanies the onset
of vision loss. (Ex. L, p. 1 (citing Tr. 56).) This is inconsistent with Dr. Bouffard’s earlier
acknowledgement that petitioner experienced eye pain for about one day at the time of onset of vision
complaints. (See Ex. A, p. 7.) However, Dr. Bouffard’s later report followed the fact hearing, during which
petitioner testified that he experienced color disturbances and blurry vision first, followed by orbital pain
weeks later, which is inconsistent with his earlier reports to Dr. Larson and Dr. Thurtell. (Tr. 56; see also
Ex. 1, p. 1; Ex. 3, p. 9.)
13

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 14 of 22
Ex. J, p. 2; Ex. L, p. 2.) Although increased cup to disc ratio is “an important feature to
recognize in patients with optic neuropathy,” such a finding is more suggestive of
compressive lesions such as aneurysms, optic nerve sheath meningiomas, or tumors
intrinsic to the optic nerve, as well as syphilis. (Ex. A, p. 7.) Dr. Bouffard noted that Dr.
Thurtell suggested an orbital MRI with and without contrast, which would have been
helpful to rule out an indolent compressive lesion, but petitioner declined. (Id.) He
added that traumatic optic neuropathy is another source of cupped optic neuropathy but
noted that petitioner’s treaters did not record any notes regarding the presence or
absence of head trauma. (Id.) Dr. Bouffard maintained that other than petitioner’s
increased cup to disc ratio, his optic nerve showed no abnormal findings. (Ex. L, p. 2.)
Additionally, while Dr. Bouffard acknowledged that RNFL thinning suggests optic nerve
damage, he explained that “it does not indicate any particular etiology.” (Ex. A, p. 6.)
Further, Dr. Bouffard stressed that petitioner’s examinations showed no evidence of
optic neuritis. Specifically, Dr. Bouffard noted petitioner’s examinations revealed normal
visual acuity and color vision, lack of RAPD, and normal visual fields. (Ex. J, p. 2 (citing
Ex. 3, pp. 9-15).)
Regarding Dr. Thurtell’s notation that petitioner’s description of symptoms was
consistent with Uhthoff’s phenomenon, Dr. Bouffard stated that he “would be surprised
to see [Uhthoff’s] in the setting of anger” given that it is associated with body
temperature. (Ex. A, p. 7.) Further, he opined that petitioner’s episodes of visual
disturbances triggered by cutting grass were more likely related to allergic eye
symptoms or ocular surface disease.8 (Id.) Regardless of whether petitioner’s
symptoms were consistent with Uhthoff’s phenomenon, Dr. Bouffard stressed that
Uhthoff’s phenomenon is “not specific to demyelinating optic neuropathy and has been
reported in other optic neuropathies.” (Id. at 7-8.)
Finally, Dr. Bouffard asserted that “[t]he tempo of petitioner’s vision loss is
unusual for optic neuritis.” (Ex. J, p. 1.; see also Ex. L, p. 1.) Dr. Bouffard noted that
petitioner described monophasic vision loss with no improvement for seven months (Ex.
J, p. 1 (citing Ex. 1, pp. 1-6).) Conversely, most patients with optic neuritis experience
“subacute progressive vision loss for days to a few weeks, then slowly start to improve.”
(Id.) Dr. Bouffard therefore opined that petitioner’s description of intermittent blurry
vision is inconsistent with progressive inflammation of the optic nerve in patients with
optic neuritis. (Ex. L, p. 1 (citing Tr. 10-12).) Thus, Dr. Bouffard concluded that
petitioner’s clinical presentation, his description of symptoms, and his ophthalmologic
examinations do not support a diagnosis of optic neuritis.
8 Dr. Bouffard elaborated that petitioner’s complaints of episodic blurry vision “could easily have been
accounted for by irritation of the cornea” and that petitioner is at higher risk of corneal irritation due to his
history of smoking. (Ex. L, p. 2.) He explained that his suspicion of corneal irritation is further supported
by petitioner’s aggravation of symptoms while cutting grass and petitioner’s use of Visine. (Id. (citing Ex.
44, pp. 2-3.)
14

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 15 of 22
ii. J. Lindsay Whitton, M.D., Ph.D.
Respondent also presented an expert opinion from immunologist Dr. Whitton.
Dr. Whitton received his medical degree from the University of Glasgow in 1979 and his
doctorate degree in virology also from the University of Glasgow in 1984. (Ex. C, pp. 1-
2; Ex. D, p. 1.) Dr. Whitton has not sought licensure in the United States, nor has he
practiced medicine in the United States. (Ex. C, pp. 2-3.) Dr. Whitton has served as a
professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at the Scripps Research
Institute since 2008. (Ex. D, p. 2.) He has published extensively on the adaptive and
innate immune response and on molecular mimicry. (See id. at 3-15.)
Like Dr. Steinman, Dr. Whitton dedicated most of his discussion to the
mechanism for causation. (See generally Ex. C; Ex. H.) Dr. Whitton deferred to Dr.
Bouffard’s opinion on diagnosis and his expertise in neuro-ophthalmology. (Ex. C, pp.
3-4.) However, Dr. Whitton contended that Dr. Thurtell made only a “speculative
diagnosis” of optic neuritis based on petitioner’s description of events that occurred one
year prior. (Id. (emphasis omitted).) Dr. Whitton emphasized Dr. Thurtell’s language:
“Based on the history, I suspect he had an attack of optic neuritis.” (Id. at 3 (quoting Ex.
3, p. 14) (emphasis in original).) He maintained that “none of petitioner’s physicians
have ever identified any objective clinical signs of optic neuritis.” (Id. at 4.)
IV. Standard of Adjudication
The parties dispute whether petitioner’s symptoms were caused by optic neuritis.
As a threshold matter, a petitioner must establish he suffers from the condition for which
he seeks compensation. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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 & Human
Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health &
Human 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 & Human Servs., 118 Fed. Cl. 47, 56 (2014) (quoting
42.U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has concluded 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 the Althen test to determine
causation.” Lombardi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 656 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
The process for making determinations in Vaccine Program cases regarding
factual issues begins with consideration of the medical records. § 300aa-11(c)(2). The
special master is required to consider “all [ ] relevant medical and scientific evidence
contained in the record,” including “any diagnosis, conclusion, medical judgment, or
autopsy or coroner’s report which is contained in the record regarding the nature,
15

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 16 of 22
causation, and aggravation of the petitioner’s illness, disability, injury, condition, or
death,” as well as “the results of any diagnostic or evaluative test which are contained in
the record and the summaries and conclusions.” § 300aa-13(b)(1)(A). The special
master is then required to weigh the evidence presented, including contemporaneous
medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d
415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (it is within the special master’s discretion to determine
whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous medical records than to other
evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given at a
later date, provided that such a determination is evidenced by a rational determination).
Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the factual circumstances
surrounding his claim. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A).
In general, contemporaneous medical records “warrant consideration as
trustworthy evidence.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, if the medical records are clear, consistent, and
complete, then they should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 03-1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12,
2005). Indeed, contemporaneous medical records are generally found to be deserving
of greater evidentiary weight than oral testimony—especially where such testimony
conflicts with the record evidence. Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528; see also Murphy v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 396 (1948)
(“It has generally been held that oral testimony which is in conflict with
contemporaneous documents is entitled to little evidentiary weight.”)), cert. den’d,
Murphy v. Sullivan, 506 U.S. 974 (1992).
Nonetheless, treating physicians’ opinions do not per se bind the special master
to adopt the conclusions of such an individual, even if they must be considered and
carefully evaluated. See § 13(b)(1) (providing that “[a]ny such diagnosis, conclusion,
judgment, test result, report, or summary shall not be binding on the special master or
court”); Snyder v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 88 Fed. Cl. 706, 746 n.67 (2009)
(“there is nothing ... that mandates that the testimony of a treating physician is
sacrosanct—that it must be accepted in its entirety and cannot be rebutted”). As with
expert testimony offered to establish a theory of causation, the opinions or diagnoses of
treating physicians are only as trustworthy as the reasonableness of their suppositions
or bases. The views of treating physicians should also be weighed against other,
contrary evidence also present in the record. Hibbard v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 742, 749 (2011) (not arbitrary or capricious for special master to
weigh competing treating physicians’ conclusions against each other), aff’d, 698 F.3d
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Caves v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 119, 136
(2011), aff’d, 463 Fed. App’x 932 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Veryzer v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 06-522V, 2011 WL 1935813, at *17 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2011),
mot. for review den’d, 100 Fed. Cl. 344, 356 (2011), aff’d without opinion, 475 Fed.
App’x 765 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
16

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 17 of 22
Additionally, there are situations in which compelling oral testimony may be more
persuasive than written records, such as where records are deemed to be incomplete or
inaccurate. Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779 (2006)
(“like any norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule should not be
treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for its application are
weak or lacking”); Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19 (“[w]ritten records which are,
themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent”) (quoting Murphy, 23 Cl. Ct. at 733). When witness testimony is
offered to overcome the presumption of accuracy afforded to contemporaneous medical
records, such testimony must be “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Sanchez
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). In making a
determination regarding whether to afford greater weight to contemporaneous medical
records or other evidence, such as testimony at hearing, there must be evidence that
this decision was the result of a rational determination. Burns, 3 F.3d at 417.
V. Discussion
As discussed in the procedural history above, there are two outstanding motions
to strike that were filed during the briefing process. As a preliminary matter, it is
necessary to resolve these motions to clarify the record upon which this fact finding will
be made. This is accomplished in section (a) below. Section (b) then addresses the
undersigned’s finding of fact with regard to petitioner’s diagnosis, concluding that there
is not preponderant evidence supporting petitioner’s preferred diagnosis.
a. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike and Respondent’s Cross-Motion to
Strike
Petitioner moved to strike respondent’s responsive brief on diagnosis and Dr.
Bouffard’s supplemental expert report filed as Exhibit M. (ECF No. 98.) Regarding
respondent’s responsive brief, although it was filed by the deadline on September 2,
2022, petitioner indicated that the parties “conferred in good faith and agreed upon filing
the briefs at 1:30 p.m. EST.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner stated that while petitioner filed his
brief at 1:33 p.m., respondent did not file his brief until 3:44 p.m. “and made no attempt
to reach out to petitioner’s counsel prior to the agreed upon deadline to request an
extension/delay.” (Id.) With respect to Dr. Bouffard’s supplemental report, petitioner
argued that it should be stricken because respondent never shared his intent to file the
report and the action of filing such a report “lacks good faith.” (Id.) Petitioner noted that
“despite conferring with petitioner’s counsel on both the extension of time for the filing of
the briefs and the concurrent filing of [the responsive briefs], respondent’s counsel
never mentioned that [respondent was] seeking and/or planning to file an expert report.”
(Id. at 1-2.) He elaborated that “respondent has repeatedly attempted to add expert
testimony to a factual issue.” (Id. at 2.)
17

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 18 of 22
In his response to petitioner’s motion to strike, respondent stressed that
petitioner “relied extensively” on the Rebolleda et al. article, which was newly filed with
petitioner’s initial brief on diagnosis. (ECF No. 99, p. 1.) Respondent further noted that
he moved for an extension of time to file his responsive brief on diagnosis on August 1,
2022, citing the need for additional time to allow for “feedback from his expert as to the
new literature petitioner filed with his initial brief.” (Id. (quoting ECF No. 94.)
Respondent asserted that Dr. Bouffard’s supplemental report responds specifically to
the comments regarding optic neuritis contained in petitioner’s initial brief and the
Rebolleda et al. article. (Id.) Respondent argued that petitioner’s motion to strike “is
effectively a motion to exclude.” (Id. at 2.) He maintained that his “actions were
prompted by petitioner’s untimely evidence” and noted that petitioner did not explain
why the Rebolleda et al. article was not provided before briefing. (Id.) In the event the
court finds it necessary to strike respondent’s brief and supplemental expert report,
respondent cross-moved to strike the Rebolleda et al. article as an untimely disclosure.
(Id. at 4.)
In his reply, petitioner stressed that respondent did not put petitioner on notice
that an expert report was forthcoming. (ECF No. 100, p. 1.) He argued that conferring
with an expert prior to filing a brief is a customary practice and does not indicate that the
expert intended to prepare an additional report. (Id.) Petitioner cited the scheduling
order issued on March 1, 2022, which indicated that “the factual record [was] sufficiently
developed to fairly resolve the issue of diagnosis.” (Id. at 2 (citing ECF No. 88, p. 1).)
Petitioner disputed respondent’s contention that he relied extensively on the Rebolleda
et al. article, noting that his initial brief mentioned the article only once. (Id. (citing ECF
No. 93, p. 8.) Petitioner also claimed that the majority of Dr. Bouffard’s supplemental
report does not address the Rebolleda et al. article, but instead discusses other aspects
of petitioner’s initial brief. (Id.) Petitioner further noted that respondent’s responsive
brief discusses Dr. Bouffard’s supplemental report extensively. (Id. at 3.)
Following the fact hearing on March 30, 2021, respondent was afforded the
opportunity to submit an additional supplemental report from Dr. Bouffard. (ECF No. 86;
Ex. L.) As noted by petitioner, during a status conference held on March 1, 2022, I then
later indicated that “the factual record has now been sufficiently developed to fairly
resolve the issue of diagnosis.” (ECF No. 88, p. 1.) Based on the discussion during the
status conference and the notion that the record was ripe for a ruling on diagnosis,
further evidence was not anticipated. (See ECF Nos. 88, 89.) Although petitioner filed
the Rebolleda et al. medical article concurrent with his initial brief, the article was not
interpreted by an expert. Additionally, contrary to respondent’s assertion, petitioner did
not rely heavily on the article in his brief. Instead, he cited it only once throughout the
ten-page brief. (ECF No. 93, p. 8.) Thus, the filing of the Rebolleda et al. article, even if
fairly subject to objection, did not reasonably open the door to the filing of an additional
report from Dr. Bouffard. Thus, that aspect of petitioner’s motion seeking to strike Dr.
Bouffard’s supplemental expert report is granted.
However, given the analysis below, there is clearly no prejudice to respondent in
accepting into evidence the Rebolleda et al. article. Vaccine Rule 8(b)(1) (“In receiving
18

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 19 of 22
evidence, the special master will not be bound by common law or statutory rules of
evidence but must consider all relevant and reliable evidence governed by principles of
fundamental fairness to both parties.”) Thus, and respondent’s cross-motion is denied.
Finally, petitioner is unpersuasive in further arguing that respondent’s brief
should also be struck. The undersigned’s scheduling order only required that the
simultaneous briefs be filed on the same date and petitioner is not persuasive in
suggesting the two-hour difference in filing times is significant. To the extent
respondent’s brief does discuss Dr. Bouffard’s now struck report, most such references
include alternative citations finding support elsewhere in the record. Those that do not
are easily disregarded and, in any event, respondent’s argumentation does not in itself
constitute evidence.
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part, and respondent’s cross-motion to strike is DENIED.
b. Finding of Fact as to Diagnosis
Petitioner has not preponderantly established that he suffered optic neuritis. Dr.
Bouffard persuasively explained that petitioner’s clinical presentation is inconsistent with
optic neuritis and it is unlikely that petitioner’s reported eye pain was caused by that
condition. While optic neuritis patients typically experience transient pain before or
accompanying vision loss, petitioner described ongoing orbital pain for several months
following his initial visual disturbance. (See Ex. A, p. 7 (citing Ex. 1, p. 1); Ex. J, pp. 1-2;
Ex. L, p. 1 (citing Tr. 19-20, 56).) Petitioner’s ability to elicit or worsen his orbital pain
through palpation of his brow and nose is also inconsistent with pain associated with
optic neuritis. (Ex. A, p. 7 (citing Ex. 1, p. 1); Ex J, p. 1.) Additionally, petitioner’s
description of ongoing vision loss with no improvement for several months is atypical for
optic neuritis. (Ex. J, p. 1 (citing Ex. 1, pp. 1-6); Ex. L, p. 1.) Further, petitioner’s
episodic blurry vision is inconsistent with progressive inflammation of the optic nerve
seen in patients with optic neuritis. (Ex. L, p. 1 (citing Tr. 10-12).) Although Dr. Thurtell
noted that petitioner’s description of symptoms was consistent with Uhthoff’s
phenomenon, Dr. Bouffard stressed that Uthoff’s phenomenon is not specific to optic
neuritis. (Ex. A, pp. 7-8.) Thus, petitioner’s medical history and treatment course
suggest that his symptoms were not caused by optic neuritis.
Furthermore, objective examinations and testing did not reveal evidence for optic
neuritis. Dr. Bouffard opined that the appearance of petitioner’s optic nerve did not
suggest optic neuritis. (Ex. A, p. 7.) Although petitioner had an increased cup to disc
ratio in his left eye, Dr. Bouffard explained that this abnormality is uncommon among
patients with optic neuritis. (Id. (citing Steward & Reid, supra, at Ex. F-11; Trobe et al.,
supra, at Ex. F-12); Ex. J, p. 2; Ex. L, p. 2.) Dr. Bouffard acknowledged that an
increased cup to disc ratio indicates optic neuropathy but noted that it likely reflects
compressive lesions such as aneurysms, optic nerve sheath meningiomas, or tumors
intrinsic to the optic nerve, or syphilis. (Ex. A, p. 7.) While petitioner’s RNFL thinning
19

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 20 of 22
suggests optic nerve damage, Dr. Bouffard explained that “it does not indicate any
particular etiology.” (Id. at 6.)
Concurrent with his initial brief, petitioner offered the Rebolleda et al. article to
dispute Dr. Bouffard’s contention that an increased cup-to-disc ratio is uncommon in
optic neuritis. (ECF No. 93, p. 8 (citing Rebolleda et al., supra, at Ex. 47.) However,
petitioner misinterprets Dr. Bouffard’s opinion. Dr. Bouffard did not assert that
cup-to-disc asymmetry is never observed in optic neuritis as petitioner suggests. He
opined that it is not specific to optic neuritis and uncommon as a result of optic neuritis.
(Ex. A, p. 7; Ex. J, p. 2; Ex. L, p. 2.) Consistent with Dr. Bouffard’s observation, the
Rebolleda article begins by acknowledging “[e]ven though optic disc cupping is usually
identified with glaucoma, it may be seen in other, less common optic nerve diseases[.]”
(Rebolleda et al., supra, at Ex. 47, p. 890.) The article further states while cup
asymmetry has been observed in patients with optic neuritis, “the most common change
in the optic nerve head (ONH) after optic neuritis is optic disc pallor[.]” (Id.) The article
qualified its observations by citing another study that found no significant increase in
optic disc cupping among patients with optic neuritis. (Id.) Ultimately, the authors
characterize the study as a first of its kind demonstration that supports inclusion of optic
neuritis as one among many diseases that can cause optic disc cupping. (Id. at 894.)
On the whole, the article does not provide evidence contrary to Dr. Bouffard’s opinion
that the appearance of petitioner’s optic nerve was not necessarily suggestive of optic
neuritis.
Moreover, Dr. Bouffard stressed that petitioner’s ophthalmologic examinations
revealed normal visual acuity and color vision, lack of RAPD, and normal visual fields.
(Ex. J, p. 2 (citing Ex. 3, pp. 9-15.) In fact, Dr. Larson described petitioner’s visual
acuity as “excellent,” and petitioner measured 20/20 in both eyes during Dr. Thurtell’s
visual examination. (Ex. 1, pp. 1-2; Ex. 3, pp. 11, 14.) Further, petitioner correctly
identified all color plates in the Ishihara color test both at Dr. Larson’s office and at Dr.
Thurtell’s office. (Ex. 1, p. 2; Ex. 3, pp. 11, 14.) Thus, based on petitioner’s
ophthalmologic examinations, the evidence preponderates against a finding that
petitioner suffered optic neuritis.
Dr. Lefkowitz only briefly discussed the diagnosis dispute in his report responding
to Dr. Bouffard. (Ex. 40.) He merely concluded that petitioner did not suffer from
ischemic, post-inflammatory, glaucomatous, or toxic etiologies without providing any
explanation other than that petitioner’s visual testing did not indicate glaucoma. (Id. at
3.) Dr. Lefkowitz asserted that petitioner suffered from optic neuritis without offering any
discussion or rebuttal regarding Dr. Bouffard’s specific critiques about petitioner’s
presentation being inconsistent with optic neuritis. (See id.) In any event, Dr.
Bouffard’s opinion is also entitled to more weight given his specialization in neuro-
ophthalmology. Dr. Lefkowitz did not discuss any experience in neuro-ophthalmology.
(See Exs. 40, 41.) In contrast, Dr. Bouffard is board-certified in neurology, completed a
neuro-ophthalmology fellowship at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, and has
written multiple peer-reviewed publications in the field of neuro-ophthalmology. (Ex. A,
pp. 2-3; Ex. B, pp. 2-3.) Given Dr. Bouffard’s experience and additional qualification in
20

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 21 of 22
neuro-ophthalmology, his opinion regarding petitioner’s clinical presentation and testing
is deserving of greater weight than that of Dr. Lefkowitz.
Petitioner otherwise relies on Dr. Thurtell’s notation as treating physician that he
“suspect[ed] [petitioner] had an attack of optic neuritis.” (Ex. 3, p. 14.) However,
although Dr. Thurtell is a treating physician, his optic neuritis diagnosis does not
outweigh Dr. Bouffard’s far more detailed opinion that petitioner’s presentation and
objective examinations were inconsistent with optic neuritis. The quality of Dr. Thurtell’s
diagnosis suffers given that it was made over one year after the onset of petitioner’s
symptoms. The Court of Federal Claims has explained that the added weight often
afforded treating physician opinions is due at least in part to their ability to observe the
unfolding of the condition at issue. Nuttall v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 122 Fed.
Cl. 821, 832-33 (2015) (explaining that the Federal Circuit “found that a treating
physician who was familiar with the patient both before and after the alleged vaccine
injury is likely to be in a better position than an expert retained after the fact” to opine
with respect to vaccine causation), aff’d 640 Fed. Appx. 996 (Mem.) (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, as noted by Dr. Bouffard, without an examination close in time to the onset of
symptoms, “the expected course of optic neuritis could not be objectively confirmed.”
(Ex. A, p. 9.)
Instead, Dr. Thurtell expressed that he suspected an optic neuritis attack “[b]ased
on the history” rather than specifically citing objective findings. (Ex. 3, p. 14.) In fact, he
noted that his neuro-ophthalmic evaluation supported only mild optic neuropathy. (Id.)
However, the history petitioner provided to Dr. Thurtell was inconsistent with the history
he provided to Dr. Larson several months earlier. (Compare Ex. 1, p. 1 (reporting vision
loss over the course of one month to Dr. Larson), with Ex. 3, p. 9 (describing
progressive vision loss over the course of “days”). Further, Dr. Bouffard noted that Dr.
Thurtell did not record a detailed history for head trauma or call for a work-up to rule out
other causes for petitioner’s symptoms. (Ex. A, pp. 7, 9.) Finally, petitioner declined the
neuroimaging Dr. Thurtell recommended to help confirm the cause of petitioner’s
symptoms. (Id.) Therefore, Dr. Thurtell’s diagnostic opinion based on the history
provided by petitioner cannot overcome the dearth of objective findings or testing to
support the optic neuritis diagnosis. See Davis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 20
Cl. Ct. 168, 173 (1990) (stating that a treating physician’s conclusions “are only as good
as the reasons and evidence that support them”).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, petitioner has not preponderately
established that he suffered optic neuritis.
VI. Conclusion
In light of the above, the evidence preponderates against a finding that petitioner
suffered optic neuritis. However, petitioner specifically pled optic neuritis in his petition.
(ECF No. 1.) Moreover, Dr. Steinman’s causal opinion is based on optic neuritis. (See,
e.g., Ex. 8, p. 7.) Accordingly, this fact finding is fatal to petitioner’s case as it is
currently framed.
21

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 103 Filed 01/03/23 Page 22 of 22
A separate scheduling order will issue giving petitioner an opportunity to indicate
whether he intends to file an amended petition and supplemental expert report based on
an injury other than optic neuritis. However, if petitioner concludes that he cannot
reasonably file an amended petition or expert report, I will issue a decision dismissing
the case based on the existing record.
Given the rulings in section V.a granting in part and denying in part petitioner’s
motion to strike and denying respondent’s cross-motion to strike, the Clerk’s Office is
directed to strike the filings contained in ECF No. 96 from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
22

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00897-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-08-15
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/21/2023) regarding 115 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 118 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-897V
Filed: July 21, 2023
PUBLISHED
Special Master Horner
TIMOTHY WOODS,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for
petitioner.
Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On June 30, 2017, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa, et seq. (2012),2 alleging that, as a result of his
October 11, 2014, influenza (“flu”) vaccination, he suffered orbital eye pain, decreased
vision, vision loss, and optic neuritis. (ECF No. 1.) Alternatively, petitioner alleged the
subject flu vaccination significantly aggravated these conditions. (Id.) On December 6,
2022, a Finding of Fact issued, concluding that petitioner did not preponderantly
demonstrate that he suffered optic neuritis as alleged. (ECF No. 101, p. 21; see also
Woods v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-897V, 2023 WL 19182, at *16 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 6, 2022).) For the reasons described below, I now further conclude
that petitioner is not entitled to compensation.
1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be
made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the document will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 Within this decision, all citations to § 300aa will be the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa, et seq.
1

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 118 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 6
I. Procedural History
As noted above, I issued a Finding of Fact as to petitioner’s diagnosis on
December 6, 2022, finding there is not preponderant evidence petitioner suffered optic
neuritis. (ECF No. 101, p. 21; Woods, 2023 WL 19182, at *16.) The procedural history
leading to the Finding of Fact is discussed in the Finding of Fact itself and need not be
repeated herein. (ECF No. 101, pp. 2-4; Woods, 2023 WL 19182, at *1–3.)
Because both the petition and petitioner’s supporting expert report as to vaccine
causation were premised on his alleged optic neuritis, the Finding of Fact was
presumptively dispositive based on the case as it had been framed. (ECF No. 101, pp.
21-22; Woods, 2023 WL 19182, at *16.) However, petitioner was provided an
opportunity to indicate whether he had any other basis upon which to proceed. (ECF
No. 102.) Absent that, a dismissal was anticipated. (Id.)
Petitioner then filed a motion for review seeking to challenge the Finding of Fact.
(ECF No. 104.) However, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the motion for review,
concluding that the Finding of Fact did not constitute a decision under 42 U.S.C. §
300aa–12(d)(3)(A). (ECF No. 112, p. 3.) The Court noted that “[i]f Petitioner so
chooses, he may raise his objections to Special Master Horner’s Finding of Fact once
Special Master Horner has issued a decision within the meaning of the Vaccine Act.”
(Id.)
After petitioner’s motion for review was dismissed, I issued an order instructing
petitioner to file either a status report confirming he intends to develop the record
regarding an injury other than optic neuritis or a written submission pursuant to Vaccine
Rule 8(d). (ECF No. 113.) On July 14, 2023, petitioner filed a status report indicating
that “[a]s petitioner’s treating providers diagnosed him with optic neuritis, and this
diagnosis is supported by both of his experts, petitioner simply cannot file an amended
petition for another injury. Petitioner wishes to preserve his right to file a motion for
review or motion for reconsideration and therefore asks the Court to issue a decision in
accordance with its Finding of Fact issued on December 6, 2022 . . . .” (ECF No. 114.)
II. Brief Summary of the Record Evidence
The full factual record underlying the Finding of Fact as to diagnosis is contained
in the Finding of Fact itself and need not be repeated. (ECF No. 101, pp. 5-15; Woods,
2023 WL 19182, at * 3–11.) Very briefly, at about 36 years of age, petitioner received
the subject flu vaccination on October 11, 2014. (Ex. 4, p. 1.) About nine months later,
he sought care from optometrist Bryan Hoke, O.D., for several symptoms, including
headache, eye pain, blurry vision, and decreased color vision. (Ex. 44, pp. 2, 5.)
Petitioner had delayed seeking treatment for several reasons, including most notably
that he was caring for his wife and taking on additional household burdens due to his
wife having recently suffered a stroke. (Ex. 7, p. 2.) Dr. Hoke referred petitioner to the
Wolfe Eye Clinic where he saw ophthalmologist LeAnn Larson, M.D., who in turn
2

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 118 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 6
recommended a neuro-ophthalmology consult. (Ex. 1, pp. 1-2.) Neither Dr. Hoke nor
Dr. Larson diagnosed or recorded any suspicion of optic neuritis.
Petitioner ultimately saw neuro-ophthalmologist Matthew Thurtell, M.D., on
November 4, 2015, just over a year after receiving the vaccination at issue. (Ex. 3, pp.
9-15.) Based on the reported history, Dr. Thurtell suspected an attack of optic neuritis
that “may have been vaccination-related,” but as of the time of his examination could
only objectively confirm mild optic neuropathy.3 (Id. at 14.) Dr. Thurtell recommended a
follow up MRI for further evaluation of demyelinating disease, which petitioner did not
pursue. (Id.)
Based on petitioner’s report of a prior episode of optic neuritis following
vaccination, petitioner’s primary care provider, Dr. Vernon, subsequently agreed that it
was reasonable for petitioner to request an exemption from future flu vaccinations. (Ex.
2, p. 4.) However, Dr. Vernon did not opine that petitioner’s condition was vaccine-
caused, noting instead that there are other factors that could have contributed to optic
neuritis. (See id.)
The parties filed competing expert opinions with respect to the accuracy of
petitioner’s alleged optic neuritis diagnosis. Marc A. Bouffard, M.D., offered an
extensive expert neuro-ophthalmology opinion on respondent’s behalf indicating that
petitioner’s history is not consistent with optic neuritis and that there is inadequate
evidence available to support the diagnosis of optic neuritis. (Exs. A-B, G, J, L.4) Todd
A. Lefkowitz, M.D., offered a much briefer expert ophthalmology opinion on petitioner’s
behalf disagreeing with aspects of Dr. Bouffard’s assessment and endorsing the optic
neuritis diagnosis. (Exs. 40-41.)
Two additional expert opinions were filed in this case. Petitioner filed an expert
opinion by neuroimmunologist Lawrence Steinman, M.D. Dr. Steinman opined as to
vaccine-causation, but not diagnosis. (Exs. 8-9, 36.) He indicated that he deferred to
Dr. Thurtell’s diagnosis. (Exs. 8, p. 6; 36, p. 1.) Dr. Steinman opined that the condition
of optic neuritis can be caused by the flu vaccine. Specifically, he opined that
“[p]etitioner’s theory” is that “[t]here is molecular mimicry between components of the
2014-2015 influenza vaccine and the myelin molecule known as MOG. An immune
attac[k] against MOG occurs in optic neuritis.” (Ex. 8, p. 8.) Absent a diagnosis of optic
3 To be clear, optic neuritis was listed as a diagnosis for this encounter. (Ex. 3, p. 13.) However, the
more detailed narrative assessment indicates, “Not surprisingly, today’s neuro-ophthalmic evaluation
showed findings consistent with a mild optic neuropathy OS. Based on the history, I suspect he had an
attack of optic neuritis OS. The attack began shortly after a flu vaccine and, thus, the attack may have
been vaccination-related.” (Id. at 14.) Accordingly, the Finding of Fact explained that in a prior order I
had advised the parties that in my view it would not be accurate to conclude that the diagnosis of optic
neuritis was not made, but the fact of the diagnosis does not mean the basis for the diagnosis is beyond
challenge. (ECF No. 101, p. 2; see also Woods, 2023 WL 19182, at *1.) Thus, this is how Dr. Thurtell’s
opinion was addressed by the Finding of Fact. (ECF No. 101, p. 21; see also Woods, 2023 WL 19182, at
*15-16.)
4 An additional report marked as Exhibit M was filed but was not considered for reasons discussed within
the Finding of Fact. (ECF No. 101, p. 17-19; see also Woods, 2023 WL 19182, at *13-14.)
3

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 118 Filed 08/15/23 Page 4 of 6
neuritis, Dr. Steinman did not otherwise opine that petitioner’s condition could be
considered vaccine caused. Dr. Steinman opined there is a logical sequence of cause
and effect between petitioner’s vaccination and his injury because “[t]he influenza
vaccine contains components that have structural homologies with MOG. Immunity to
MOG is associated with optic neuritis.” (Id. at 20.) Respondent filed a competing expert
opinion by immunologist J. Lindsay Whitton, M.D., Ph.D. (Exs. C-D, H.) Dr. Whitton’s
opinion challenged Dr. Steinman’s assessment that the flu vaccine can cause optic
neuritis. (Ex. C, pp. 4-15.)
III. Discussion
In light of all of the above, this case is now ripe for resolution. Petitioner has
specifically requested that a decision be issued on the current record in accordance with
the prior Finding of Fact. (ECF No. 114.) I have also concluded that the parties have
had a full and fair opportunity to develop the record and that it is appropriate to resolve
this case based on the existing record. See Kreizenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 945 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Simanski v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 671 F.3d 1368, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Jay v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 998 F.2d 979, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Vaccine Rule 8(d); Vaccine Rule
3(b)(2).
The Vaccine Act prohibits a special master from ruling for petitioner based solely
on his allegations unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion. See 42
U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1). Generally, to receive compensation in the Vaccine Program,
a petitioner must prove either (1) that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling
within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding to a covered vaccine, or (2) that he
suffered an injury that was actually caused by a covered vaccine. See 42 U.S.C. §
300aa–13(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–11(c)(1). To satisfy the burden of proving
causation in fact, petitioner must meet the so-called “Althen test” by demonstrating by
preponderant evidence: “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and
the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was
the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship
between vaccination and injury.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d
1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
However, the Federal Circuit has concluded 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 the Althen test to determine causation.” Lombardi v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 656 F.3d 1343, 1351–53 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Importantly, “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.’” Andreu ex rel. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Knudsen ex rel. Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 549 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Petitioner must “specify his vaccine-
related injury and shoulder the burden of proof on causation.” Broekelschen v. Sec'y of
4

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 118 Filed 08/15/23 Page 5 of 6
Health & Human Servs., 618 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “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 & Human Servs., 118 Fed. Cl. 47, 56 (2014)
(emphasis omitted) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–11(c)). And, in any event, a petitioner
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the factual circumstances surrounding
his claim. See 42 US.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1)(A).
In this case, petitioner has not demonstrated by preponderant evidence that he
suffered optic neuritis following administration of his October 11, 2014 flu vaccination for
all the reasons discussed in my prior December 6, 2022 Finding of Fact. (ECF No. 101;
Woods, 2023 WL 19182.) However, petitioner’s expert on causation, Dr. Steinman,
formulated his causal opinion based on the assumption that petitioner suffered optic
neuritis and his explanation that the flu vaccine can cause optic neuritis via molecular
mimicry between vaccine components and myelin tissue molecules known to be
attacked in the context of optic neuritis. Absent optic neuritis, Dr. Steinman did not
provide any opinion that could otherwise implicate petitioner’s flu vaccine as a cause of
any of his symptoms.
Any causal assessments contained in petitioner’s medical records were likewise
premised on the presence of optic neuritis. Petitioner’s treating neuro-ophthalmologist,
Dr. Thurtell, opined that petitioner’s post-vaccination symptoms “may have been
vaccination-related” because he suspected an attack of optic neuritis arising shortly
after vaccination. (Ex. 3, p. 14.) In that regard, he recommended further MRI follow up
to screen for demyelinating disease. (Id.) A demyelinating optic neuritis would dovetail
with Dr. Steinman’s theory that components of petitioner’s vaccination cross-reacted
with myelin tissue. (Indeed, Dr. Steinman explicitly relied on Dr. Thurtell’s diagnosis of
optic neuritis.) However, the same cannot be said of the optic neuropathy that Dr.
Thurtell actually observed upon examination, which would not necessarily have the
same etiology. See, e.g., Robertson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-554V,
2022 WL 17484980, at *12–13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 7, 2022) (finding that the
expert’s discussion of demyelinating optic neuritis was irrelevant where petitioner
suffered an ischemic form of optic neuropathy); see also Katz v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 04-714V, 2005 WL 6117659, at *18 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 30,
2005) (finding that petitioner’s expert’s theory was “mismatched” to petitioner’s
diagnosis where petitioner suffered a non-demyelinating form of optic neuritis). Apart
from referencing a suspected attack of optic neuritis, Dr. Thurtell did not otherwise
suggest that any of petitioner’s symptoms were caused by his vaccination.
For all these reasons, a separate Althen analysis relative to optic neuritis is not
required given the prior Finding of Fact. Petitioner necessarily has not met his burden of
proof with respect to causation-in-fact. See Lombardi, 656 F.3d at 1352–53;
Broekelschen, 618 F.3d at 1345–46; Stillwell, 118 Fed. Cl. at 56. Petitioner was
provided an opportunity to determine whether he could demonstrate his symptoms to be
vaccine caused without relying on a diagnosis of optic neuritis, but he has indicated that
he cannot do so. (ECF No. 114.)
5

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 118 Filed 08/15/23 Page 6 of 6
IV. Conclusion
Nothing in this decision is intended to diminish the fact that petitioner did
experience a concerning optic condition of some kind and that this occurred during what
was clearly already a stressful period in his life. For that he has my sympathy.
Moreover, given all of the above, it is understandable that he would come to personally
believe that his condition was caused by his flu vaccination. However, for all the
reasons discussed herein, petitioner has not preponderantly demonstrated that he
actually suffered a vaccine-caused injury and is therefore not entitled to compensation.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
5 In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review of this Decision, the Clerk of the Court shall enter
judgment accordingly.
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00897-4
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-14
Pages: 10
Docket text: JUDGE VACCINE OPINION (PUBLIC VERSION) on 124 Petitioner's Motion for Review. Signed by Judge Carolyn N. Lerner. (ak) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
TIMOTHY WOODS,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 17-00897
(Filed: November 14, 2023) 1
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Respondent.
Mark Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates LLC, Englewood, NJ, for Petitioner.
Mary Holmes, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
LERNER, Judge.
Petitioner Timothy Woods seeks review of Special Master Daniel Horner’s Decision
denying compensation for his claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
(“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa et seq. Mot. for Review, ECF No. 119 (“Mot. for Review
II”). Petitioner alleges he developed optic neuritis because of an influenza vaccine he received
on October 11, 2014. Pet., ECF No. 1. The Special Master denied relief, finding that Petitioner
failed to sufficiently demonstrate he suffered from optic neuritis. However, the Special Master
allowed Petitioner to proceed on a diagnosis other than optic neuritis. Petitioner declined and
instead filed this Motion for Review.
Petitioner contends the Special Master’s finding that he did not suffer optic neuritis was
arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Because Petitioner has not shown that the Special
Master erred or that his factual findings and legal determinations were arbitrary, capricious, or
otherwise not in accordance with law, the Decision is affirmed.
Accordingly, and as further explained below, this Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for
Review.
1 This Opinion was filed under seal on October 30, 2023. Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), the
parties had fourteen days to propose redactions. None were proposed. Accordingly, this Court
reissues this Opinion in its original form.
1

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 2 of 10
I. Background
A. Factual Background2
Petitioner received the influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 11, 2014. Finding of
Fact at 5, ECF No. 101. Roughly nine months later, Petitioner experienced headaches, eye pain,
blurry vision, and decreased color vision. Id. Petitioner sought care from optometrist Bryan
Hoke, O.D., for these symptoms. Id. Dr. Hoke referred Petitioner to Wolfe Eye Clinic where he
saw ophthalmologist LeAnn Larson, M.D. Id. Dr. Larson recommended a neuro-ophthalmology
consult. Id. at 6. As noted by the Special Master, neither Dr. Hoke nor Dr. Larson diagnosed or
recorded any suspicion of optic neuritis. Id. Optic neuritis is the “inflammation, degeneration,
or demyelinization of the optic nerve or optic disc caused by a wide variety of diseases. Loss of
vision is the cardinal symptom.” Optic neuritis, Mosby’s Medical Dictionary (10th ed. 2017).
Over the next few months, Petitioner saw his primary care physician for complaints
unrelated to his vision problems. Id. During that time, Petitioner smoked about a pack of
cigarettes a day and was under stress due to his nursing school responsibilities and his wife’s
health issues. Id. Petitioner’s primary care physician “noted that [P]etitioner was scheduled for
a neuro-ophthalmology consult ‘to evaluate for the possibility of an optic neuritis disorder.’” Id.
(quoting Medical Records Ex. 2 at 8, ECF No. 6-2). In early November 2015, just over a year
after receiving the vaccination at issue, Petitioner saw neuro-ophthalmologist Matthew Thurtell,
M.D. Id. at 6. Based on the reported history, Dr. Thurtell suspected an attack of optic neuritis
that “may have been vaccination-related,” but upon examination, could only objectively confirm
mild optic neuropathy.3 Id. at 7. Dr. Thurtell recommended Petitioner receive a brain MRI for
further evaluation, but Petitioner declined to do so. Id.
On January 27, 2016, Petitioner requested that his primary care physician provide an
exemption from future flu vaccinations. Id. The provider granted the request, but believed there
were other factors that could have contributed to Petitioner’s condition. Id. Over a year later, on
March 30, 2017, an eye examination at Peterson Eye Care revealed that Petitioner’s vision was
normal. Id. On December 1, 2017, Petitioner went back to Wolfe Eye Clinic for ongoing
intermittent left eye pain. Id. There, Dr. Larson performed an optical coherence tomography
(“OCT”) scan, which indicated possible affliction in the left eye, and recommended Petitioner
follow up with a neuro-ophthalmologist. Id. There is no evidence that Petitioner pursued this
referral. See id.
2 To resolve the pending Motion for Review, the Court summarizes the facts as presented
in the Special Master’s Finding of Fact and Decision.
3 Optic neuropathy is “a disease, generally noninflammatory, of the eye, characterized by
dysfunction or destruction of the optic nerve tissues. Causes include an interruption in the blood
supply, compression by a tumor or aneurysm, a nutritional deficiency, and toxic effects of a
chemical. The disorder, which can lead to blindness, usually affects only one eye.” Optic
neuropathy, Mosby’s Medical Dictionary (10th ed. 2017).
2

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 3 of 10
Over two years later, on February 18, 2020, Petitioner returned to Wolfe Eye Clinic and
saw Cory Bower, O.D. Id. Petitioner underwent another OCT scan, which showed mild nerve
fiber thinning in Petitioner’s left eye. Id. Dr. Bower “noted that this finding is consistent with
optic neuritis,” but concluded that Petitioner’s “condition was ‘stable’ and ‘[i]nsignificant’ in
terms of overall severity.” Id. (quoting Medical Records, ECF No. 65, Ex. 42 at 5, 6).
B. Procedural Background
On June 30, 2017, Petitioner filed a Vaccine Act claim with the Office of Special Master
alleging that his October 11, 2014 flu vaccination was responsible for his orbital eye pain,
decreased vision, vision loss, and optic neuritis. Pet. at 1. In support, Petitioner provided expert
opinions by neuroimmunologist Lawrence Steinman and ophthalmologist Todd Lefkowitz.
Expert Report, ECF Nos. 18, 28, 54. Respondent submitted competing expert opinions from
neuro-ophthalmologist Marc Bouffard and immunologist J. Lindsay Whitton. Expert Report,
ECF Nos. 21, 23, 34, 35. The parties’ experts disagreed on an optic neuritis diagnosis. Decision
at 3, ECF No. 115. Because Petitioner’s causation theory depended on an optic neuritis
diagnosis, the Special Master found it “reasonable to first resolve on the written record the
question of whether there is preponderant evidence that [P]etitioner suffered optic neuritis.”
Scheduling Order, ECF No. 61. A fact hearing was held on March 30, 2021, followed by
additional briefing and record development. Prehearing Order, ECF No. 63.
On July 1, 2022, the parties filed briefs regarding the factual issue of diagnosis. Pet’r’s
Br., Resp’t’s Br., ECF Nos. 92, 93. On September 2, 2022, the parties submitted concurrent
responsive briefs. Pet’r’s Reply, Resp’t’s Reply, ECF Nos. 95, 97. With its response brief,
Respondent included a supplemental expert report from neuro-ophthalmologist Marc Bouffard.
Expert Report (“Ex. M”), ECF No. 96. Petitioner moved to strike both Respondent’s brief and
Dr. Bouffard’s report. Pet’r’s Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 98.
On December 6, 2022, the Special Master issued his findings. Finding of Fact. After
considering the record, including Petitioner’s medical history, the expert reports, and applicable
law, the Special Master concluded that Petitioner had not established that he suffered from optic
neuritis. Id. at 19. The Special Master described the factual history as reflected in the medical
records, in Petitioner’s affidavit, and in his and his wife’s testimony. Id. at 5–9. The Special
Master summarized the expert reports and their competing positions. Id. at 10–15. The Special
Master noted Dr. Bouffard’s conclusion that Petitioner’s clinical presentation, description of
symptoms, and ophthalmologic examinations did not support an optic neuritis diagnosis. Id. at
14. Granting in part Petitioner’s Motion to Strike, the Special Master excluded Dr. Bouffard’s
supplemental expert report from the record. Id. at 19.
In giving more weight to Respondent’s expert reports, the Special Master concluded that
Petitioner “has not preponderantly established that he suffered optic neuritis.” Id. The Special
Master noted that Petitioner specifically pled optic neuritis in his Petition and that Dr.
Steinman’s causal opinion is based on optic neuritis. Id. at 21. Because “the evidence
preponderates against a finding that [P]etitioner suffered optic neuritis,” the Special Master
cautioned that this finding was presumptively dispositive. Id. However, the Special Master gave
him “an opportunity . . . to file an amended petition and supplemental expert report based on an
injury other than optic neuritis.” Id. at 22. Instead, Petitioner filed a Motion for Review with
3

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 4 of 10
this court. Mot. for Review, ECF No. 104. Petitioner alleged that the Special Master’s findings
elevated the Petitioner’s burden above the preponderance of evidence standard and were
arbitrary, capricious, or not otherwise in accordance with the law. Id. at 1.
Respondent moved to dismiss on grounds that the Special Master’s Finding of Fact is not
a decision under the Vaccine Act and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to review it.
Mot. to Dismiss at 3–7, ECF No. 107. Judge Thompson Dietz, who was initially assigned this
case, dismissed Petitioner’s Motion for Review, explaining that “Special Master Horner has not
yet issued a decision under Section 12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine Act.” Mem. Op. and Order at 3,
ECF No. 112. Following this dismissal, the Special Master again directed Petitioner to file “a
status report confirming he intends to file an amended petition and supplemental expert report
based on an injury other than optic neuritis or a written submission pursuant to Vaccine Rule
8(d).” Scheduling Order, ECF No. 113.
For a second time, Petitioner declined to file an amended petition and stated that he
would either file a motion for reconsideration or another motion for review. Pet’r’s Status
Report at 1, ECF No. 114. Petitioner asked the Special Master to issue a decision in accordance
with his Finding of Fact. Id. On July 21, 2023, the Special Master dismissed Petitioner’s case,
finding that Petitioner did not preponderantly demonstrate he suffered optic neuritis. Decision
at 6.
The Special Master reiterated that Petitioner’s claim hinged on an optic neuritis
diagnosis, and any “causal assessments contained in [P]etitioner’s medical records were likewise
premised on the presence of optic neuritis.” Id. at 5. However, Petitioner failed to sufficiently
demonstrate that he suffered from that condition. Id. The Special Master explained that
Petitioner “was provided an opportunity to determine whether he could demonstrate his
symptoms to be vaccine caused without relying on a diagnosis of optic neuritis, but he has
indicated that he cannot do so.” Id. Petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was
denied, with the Special Master cautioning that Petitioner’s “motion does not come anywhere
close to stating a basis for reconsideration under the [relevant] legal standard despite its heated
rhetoric.” Order Den. Recons. at 5, ECF No. 117. On August 17, 2023, Petitioner filed a second
Motion for Review, which is now before this Court. Mot. for Review II.
II. Standard of Review
Under the Vaccine Act, parties may request the United States Court of Federal Claims to
review a special master’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–12(e)(1). Upon such review, the court
may:
(A) uphold the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the special master and
sustain the special master’s decision,
(B) set aside any findings of fact or conclusion of law of the special master found
to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law and issue its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, or
(C) remand the petition to the special master for further action in accordance with
the court’s direction.
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2); accord Vaccine Rule 27.
4

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 5 of 10
The standards in section 12(e)(2)(B) “vary in application as well as degree of deference”
as each “standard applies to a different aspect of the judgment.” Munn v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 970 F.2d 863, 870 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Fact findings are reviewed . . . under the
arbitrary and capricious standard; legal questions under the ‘not in accordance with law’
standard; and discretionary rulings under the abuse of discretion standard.” Id. “Thus, the
[Court of Federal Claims] judge reviews the special master’s decision essentially for legal error
or factual arbitrariness.” Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1574 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). The standard of review is “the most deferential possible.” Munn, 970 F.2d at 870.
When reviewing a special master’s factual findings, the Court does “not reweigh the
factual evidence, assess whether the special master correctly evaluated the evidence, or examine
the probative value of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses—these are all matters
within the purview of the fact finder.” Porter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 663 F.3d 1242,
1249 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (stating that the Vaccine Act “makes clear that, on review, the Court of Federal
Claims is not to second guess the Special Masters [sic] fact-intensive conclusions”); Munn v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 21 Cl. Ct. 345, 348 (1990), aff’d, 970 F.2d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(“If the evidence in the record has been considered, and such evidence provides a reasonable
basis for the special master’s finding, the special master’s findings of fact may not be set
aside.”); Snyder ex rel. Snyder v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 88 Fed. Cl. 706, 718 (2009)
(“[T]he law is settled that neither the Court of Federal Claims nor the Federal Circuit can
substitute its judgment for that of the special master merely because it might have reached a
different conclusion.”).
“[S]pecial masters have broad discretion to weigh evidence and make factual
determinations.” Dougherty v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 Fed. Cl. 223, 229 (2018).
The special master “need not discuss every item of evidence in the record” when making a
factual finding “so long as the decision makes clear that the special master fully considered a
party’s position and arguments on point.” Snyder v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 36 Fed. Cl.
461, 466 (1996), aff’d, 117 F.3d 545 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see, e.g., Hazlehurst v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 604 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that a reviewing court presumes that
the fact finder has considered all the material in the record, whether or not it is mentioned in his
or her decision). Furthermore, the “special master’s decision often times is based on the
credibility of the experts and the relative persuasiveness of their competing theories.”
Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 618 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
Federal Circuit has made clear that the special master’s credibility findings “are virtually
unchallengeable on appeal.” Lampe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 219 F.3d 1357, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
III. Discussion
Petitioner asks this Court to set aside the Special Master’s findings and determine instead
that he suffered optic neuritis by a preponderance of the evidence. Mot. for Review II at 1.
Fundamentally, Petitioner wants this Court “to engage in an activity beyond [its] authority as
constricted by statute and precedent—namely to reweigh the evidence concerning” if Petitioner
suffered from optic neuritis. Webb v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 2021-2276, 2022 WL
1073216, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2022). Alternatively, Petitioner “requests that the Court
5

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 6 of 10
remand the case back to the Special Master for further consideration.” Mot. for Review II
at 1 n.1.
Petitioner argues that the Special Master erred in three ways. First, he claims the Special
Master “impermissibly elevated” Petitioner’s burden to establish optic neuritis. Id. at 1. Second,
Petitioner asserts that the Special Master’s finding that Petitioner “does not have optic neuritis
was not in accordance with the law, and/or was at a minimum, arbitrary and capricious.” Id. at 2.
And finally, Petitioner contends the “lack of fairness in the process deprived Petitioner of a fair
and impartial decision on the critical issues in his case and thus was not in accordance with the
law.” Id.
The Court is unpersuaded. Special Master Horner’s factual findings are in accordance
with the law and are neither arbitrary nor capricious. The record shows the Special Master
scrutinized and weighed the competing evidence, relied on the record, and thoroughly explained
his reasoning in reaching his conclusions. In accordance with the arbitrary and capricious
standard, this Court gives the Special Master’s factual findings deference. Additionally,
Petitioner fails to demonstrate a lack of fairness in the Special Master’s proceedings. For these
reasons, this Court upholds the Special Master’s Decision and denies Petitioner’s request for a
remand.
A. The Special Master’s determination that Petitioner did not have optic neuritis
was not arbitrary and capricious.
To receive compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a
petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a vaccine caused the injury at
issue. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa–11(c)(1), –13(a)(1). If the claimed injury is not listed in the Vaccine
Injury Table (i.e., an “off-Table injury”), the petitioner may seek compensation by proving
causation in fact. Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir.
2010); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–11(c)(1)(C)(ii). Here, Petitioner alleges he suffered an off-Table
injury following his flu vaccination on October 11, 2014. He therefore needs to prove “causation
in fact” under the “Althen test.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 2005). To succeed, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence:
“(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence
of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing
of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Id.
However, an off-Table petitioner “must specify his vaccine-related injury.”
Broekelschen, 618 F.3d at 1346. The Federal Circuit explained that the Vaccine Act “places the
burden on the petitioner to make a showing of at least one defined and recognized injury.”
Lombardi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 656 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis
added). “Medical recognition of the injury claimed is critical and by definition a ‘vaccine-
related injury,’ i.e., illness, disability, injury or condition, has to be more than just a symptom or
manifestation of an unknown injury.” Broekelschen, 618 F.3d at 1349. Simply, as a threshold
matter, Petitioner must establish that he suffered from optic neuritis.
This case is unusual in that Petitioner’s injury itself was in dispute. See, e.g., id. at 1346.
Thus, it was appropriate “for the [S]pecial [M]aster to first determine which injury was best
supported by the evidence presented in the record before applying the Althen test.” Id.; see also
6

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 7 of 10
Wyatt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 825 F. App’x 880, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Identification
of the petitioner’s injury is a prerequisite to causation analysis.”). “In the absence of a showing
of the very existence of any specific injury of which the petitioner complains, the question of
causation is not reached.” Lombardi, 656 F.3d at 1353.
After extensive briefing, multiple expert reports, and a hearing, the Special Master found
that Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he suffered from optic neuritis. See Decision
at 1–4. Petitioner’s complaint that the Special Master “disregarded” certain evidence amounts to
a request that this Court reweigh the evidence in the hope that it will come to a different
conclusion. Mot. for Review II at 13–17. When reviewing a special master’s factual findings,
the Court may “set aside any findings of fact or conclusion of law . . . [if] found to be arbitrary
[or] capricious,” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2)(B), but it may not “substitute its judgment for that
of the special master.” Snyder, 88 Fed. Cl. at 718. The “arbitrary and capricious” standard is
“highly deferential.” Hines on Behalf of Sevier v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 940 F.2d 1518,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The standard “is difficult for an appellant to satisfy with respect to any
issue, but particularly with respect to an issue that turns on the weighing of evidence by the trier
of fact.” Milik v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 822 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal
quotations omitted). If the Special Master has “considered the relevant evidence of record,
drawn plausible inferences and articulated a rational basis for the decision, reversible error will
be extremely difficult to demonstrate.” Hines, 940 F.2d at 1528.
Here, the Special Master provided a thorough analysis, explaining the evidence before
him and the reasons supporting his conclusions. The Special Master chronicled the factual
history as reflected in the medical records, as well as in Petitioner’s affidavit and testimony, and
discussed its relevance to the case, its weight, and its credibility. Finding of Fact at 5–10.
The Special Master, in interpreting the factual history, explained the reasoning behind his
conclusion that “Petitioner has not preponderantly established that he suffered optic neuritis.”
Finding of Fact at 19. The Special Master noted that Petitioner’s physical symptoms are
“inconsistent” with those typically associated with optic neuritis, explaining that “objective
examinations and testing did not reveal evidence for optic neuritis.” Id. Indeed, as stressed by
the Special Master, “Dr. Larson described [P]etitioner’s visual acuity as ‘excellent,’ and
[P]etitioner measured 20/20 in both eyes during Dr. Thurtell’s visual examination.” Id. at 20
(citing Medical Records Ex. 1 at 1-2; Ex. 3 at 11, 14). Accordingly, the Special Master observed
that “the evidence preponderates against a finding that [P]etitioner suffered optic neuritis” based
on the ophthalmologic examinations. Id. Moreover, in evaluating the expert reports, the Special
Master explained why he gave more weight to Petitioner’s expert and less weight to Dr.
Thurtell’s “notation as treating physician.” Id. at 21. This Court is convinced that the Special
Master properly considered the evidence before him.
Petitioner repeatedly claims that “all four of [his] treating providers diagnosed him with
optic neuritis.” Mot. for Review II at 14; see also id. at 1 (asserting Petitioner had an
“uncontested diagnosis of optic neuritis from multiple treaters”); id. at 17 (“uncontested
diagnosis from the treating physicians”); id. (“the Special Master overruled an undisputed
diagnosis of optic neuritis made by 4 treating doctors”). But these assertions simply do not
comport with the evidence. Indeed, Petitioner fails to point to any evidence that either Dr. Hoke
or Dr. Larson diagnosed him with optic neuritis. Thus, Special Master Horner’s finding that Dr.
7

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 8 of 10
Hoke had not “diagnosed or recorded any suspicion of optic neuritis” is supported by the record.
Decision at 2–3 (citing July 6, 2015 Wolfe Eye Clinic Medical Records Ex. 1, ECF No. 6-1;
Influenza Immunization Consent Forms Ex. 4, ECF No. 6-4; Affidavit by Timothy Woods Ex. 7,
ECF No. 9; July 8, 2015 Wolfe Eye Clinic Medical Records Ex. 44, ECF No. 81-1). In fact, the
Special Master notes that Petitioner only “shared his concern” with Dr. Larson “that he may have
optic neuritis based on his own internet research.” Finding of Fact at 5 (citing Ex. 1 at 1).
Petitioner is “correct that not all of the evidence in the record supports the [S]pecial
[M]aster’s findings. That, however, is not the question.” Doe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
601 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, the Court “determine[s] whether the [S]pecial
[M]aster’s findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence.” Id. For the reasons set forth
above, the Court finds that Special Master Horner’s factual findings are sufficiently supported by
substantial evidence.
Petitioner asserts that the Special Master did not properly weigh neuro-ophthalmologist
Dr. Thurtell’s statement. Mot. for Review II at 13 (citing Ex. A at 3). In it, Dr. Thurtell notes
that “[b]ased on the history, [he] suspect[s] [Petitioner] had an attack of optic neuritis.” Id. But
the Special Master convincingly explains why Dr. Thurtell’s statement is rebutted by the balance
of evidence. First, the Special Master noted that the “quality of Dr. Thurtell’s diagnosis suffers
given that it was made over one year after the onset of [P]etitioner’s symptoms.” Finding of Fact
at 21. Second, the Special Master explained that Dr. Thurtell based his written statement
primarily on the history provided by Petitioner, which “was inconsistent with the history he
provided to Dr. Larson several months earlier.” Id. Finally, the Special Master noted that Dr.
Thurtell did not “call for a work-up to rule out other causes for [P]etitioner’s symptoms” and that
Petitioner declined the MRI recommended by Dr. Thurtell to confirm their cause. Id. The
Special Master appropriately found that “Dr. Thurtell’s diagnostic opinion based on the history
provided by [P]etitioner cannot overcome the dearth of objective findings or testing to support
the optic neuritis diagnosis.” Id. The Special Master’s conclusions are persuasive.
Petitioner also claims that his experts are either more qualified, or that the Special Master
erroneously gave more weight to Respondent’s expert reports. See Mot. for Review II at 13
(claiming that Petitioner’s expert is “arguably more qualified than Dr. Bouffard”); id. at 14
(stating that the Special Master “diminish[ed] . . . evidence in favor of” Respondent’s experts);
id. at 15 (arguing “the Special Master gave more weight to Dr. Bouffard’s reports than Dr.
Lefkowitz”); id. (“The Special Master goes on to give Dr. Bouffard’s report more weight over
[that of] Dr. Thurtell.”). But the record suggests the Special Master appropriately weighed the
competing expert reports.
The Special Master discussed at length Dr. Bouffard’s expert opinion that Petitioner’s
clinical presentation, description of his symptoms, and ophthalmologic examinations did not
support an optic neuritis diagnosis. Finding of Fact at 11–14. He also weighed the expert
opinions and noted that Dr. Bouffard’s opinion was “entitled to more weight given his
specialization in neuro-ophthalmology.” Finding of Fact at 20; see also id. at 20–21 (“Given Dr.
Bouffard’s experience and additional qualification in neuro-ophthalmology, his opinion
regarding [P]etitioner’s clinical presentation and testing is deserving of greater weight than that
of Dr. Lefkowitz.”). Finally, he thoroughly reviewed Petitioner’s expert reports. See Finding of
8

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 9 of 10
Fact at 5–7 (discussion of Petitioner’s exhibits including records from Dr. Hoke, Dr. Larson, Dr.
Vernon, and Dr. Thurtell); 10–11 (review of Petitioner’s expert evidence).
The Federal Circuit has emphasized that “the special master’s decision often times is
based on the credibility of the experts and the relative persuasiveness of their competing theories
and such credibility findings are virtually unchallengeable on appeal.” Porter, 663 F.3d at 1251
(internal quotations omitted). It bears repeating that this Court does “not reweigh the factual
evidence, assess whether the special master correctly evaluated the evidence, or examine the
probative value of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. at 1249. Because the
Special Master’s factual findings are reasonably drawn from the record, with appropriate weight
given to the competing expert reports, this Court will not disturb the Special Master’s
conclusion. In addition, there is no reason to remand for further proceedings. Petitioner was
provided several opportunities to proceed on a diagnosis other than optic neuritis, opportunities
which he chose not to pursue. See, e.g., Scheduling Order, ECF No. 102; Scheduling Order,
ECF No. 113; Decision at 2. Furthermore, Petitioner already filed a Motion for Reconsideration
which the Special Master denied. See Mot. for Recons.; Order Den. Recons. Accordingly,
remanding for further proceedings would be futile. See Koston v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 597, 603 (1991), aff’d, 974 F.2d 157 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
B. Petitioner has not proved a lack of fairness in the proceedings.
Petitioner also argues that Dr. Bouffard’s supplemental expert report, Exhibit M, was
“highly prejudicial” and that the Special Master’s exposure to the report “deprived [Petitioner] of
a fair and impartial ruling on the critical issue in his case.” Mot. for Review II at 17–18.
Petitioner’s argument fails because he did not make these arguments before the Special Master.
As a result, he is precluded from asserting them here. See Weddel v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 23 F.3d 388, 390 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Jay v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 998 F.2d
979, 983 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Under Vaccine Rule 8(f)(1), any argument that is “not raised
specifically in the record before the special master will be considered waived and cannot be
raised by either party in proceedings on review of a special master’s decision.” Rules of the U.S.
Ct. of Fed. Cl., Vaccine Act Rule 8(f)(1). Indeed, Petitioner does not claim to have previously
argued before the Special Master that Exhibit M was “highly prejudicial” and deprived him of a
“fair and impartial ruling.” Mot. for Review II at 17–18. Consequently, this Court need not
consider these arguments.
However, even if Petitioner’s arguments were not waived, they fail for the critical reason
that Petitioner has not shown any “lack of procedural fairness.” Mot. for Review II at 17. The
Special Master struck Exhibit M after determining that Respondent improperly submitted
another expert report. See Finding of Fact at 18 (“[T]he filing of [a medical] article, even if
fairly subject to objection, did not reasonably open the door to the filing of an additional report
from Dr. Bouffard. Thus, that aspect of [P]etitioner’s motion seeking to strike Dr. Bouffard’s
supplemental expert report is granted.”). The Special Master did not rely on Exhibit M in his
Finding of Fact, and Petitioner fails to identify any evidence of prejudice. In fact, as a further
example of the Special Master’s evenhandedness, he denied Respondent’s Cross-Motion to
Strike the improperly submitted medical article by Petitioner. Finding of Fact at 18. Although
the Special Master struck the exhibit, he accepted into evidence Petitioner’s medical article as
“there [was] clearly no prejudice to [R]espondent.” Id.
9

Case 1:17-vv-00897-CNL Document 126 Filed 11/14/23 Page 10 of 10
Moreover, Petitioner does not cite any authority for the proposition that the Special
Master’s mere exposure to a stricken expert report is “extremely prejudicial” and requires new
fact-finding by this Court. Special masters are not bound by traditional rules of admissibility or
the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Hazlehurst, 604 F.3d at 1349; Whitecotton v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 81 F.3d 1099, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[T]he permissible scope of the special
master’s inquiry is virtually unlimited. Congress desired the special masters to have very wide
discretion with respect to the evidence they would consider and the weight to be assigned that
evidence.”). The Special Master, acting as a fact-finder, is presumed capable of filtering out
improper evidence. See Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., 607 F.3d
817, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (a judge acting as a fact-finder “can presumably exclude improper
inferences”); Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 346 (1981) (“[J]udges routinely hear inadmissible
evidence that they are presumed to ignore when making decisions.”). Given the absence of
evidence that Dr. Bouffard’s stricken report improperly influenced the Special Master, this Court
finds no reason to vacate the Decision or remand.
IV. Conclusion
Petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate that the Special Master’s Decision was
arbitrary and not in accordance with the law. The Special Master applied the correct legal
standards, and his findings are supported by the record. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Petitioner’s Motion for Review and SUSTAINS the Special Master’s Decision. The Clerk of the
Court shall enter judgment for Respondent accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Carolyn N. Lerner
CAROLYN N. LERNER
Judge
10