Brian Anklam, Karen Anklam, As the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Their… v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BRIAN ANKLAM, KAREN ANKLAM, AS THE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF
THEIR DAUGHTER, N.A., DECEASED,
Petitioners-Appellants
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-2161
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:17-vv-02061-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G.
Bruggink.
______________________
Decided: February 20, 2026
______________________
CURTIS RANDAL WEBB , Monmouth, OR, argued for pe-
titioners-appellants.
ALEC SAXE, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued
for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M.
Case: 24-2161 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 1 of 8 --

ANKLAM v. HHS 2
BOYNTON, C. S ALVATORE D'ALESSIO, T RACI P ATTON,
HEATHER L YNN P EARLMAN.
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
D YK, Circuit Judge.
Petitioners Brian and Karen Anklam, as the legal
representatives of the estate of their daughter, N.A.,
appeal a Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) deci-
sion affirming a special master’s decision denying them
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Com-
pensation Program. That program was established by the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at
42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–300aa-34) (“Vaccine Act”). They
also appeal a Claims Court decision denying petitioners’
motion to reopen the record to consider a new medical
article. We see no error in the Claims Court’s decision on
the merits or its decision not to itself reopen the record.
However, in light of the unique circumstances here, we
vacate the Claims Court’s judgment and remand for the
special master to consider in the first instance whether
the record should be reopened.
BACKGROUND
On the night of June 30 and July 1, 2016, N.A. died
unexpectedly. N.A. was previously a healthy one-year-
old; she had received a Mumps, Measles, Rubella, and
Varicella (“MMRV”) vaccine on June 23, 2016, a week
before her death. On June 30, Mrs. Anklam took N.A.
and her siblings to a splash park. After returning home,
Mrs. Anklam described N.A. feeling “a little warm” but
not “warm enough . . . to take her temperature.”
Case: 24-2161 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 2 of 8 --

ANKLAM v. HHS 3
App’x 100.1 So, Mrs. Anklam, a registered nurse, gave
N.A. Motrin and put her to bed.
When Mr. Anklam went to check on N.A. in the morn-
ing, he knew something was wrong. N.A.’s body was
positioned “like a little star,” “her feet were purple” and
“[h]er face was straight down to the mattress.” App’x 100.
Mr. Anklam, an experienced paramedic, picked N.A. up
and immediately realized N.A. was dead and had been for
a while. The autopsy concluded N.A. died from asphyxia.
On December 29, 2017, petitioners filed a petition for
compensation under the Vaccine Act, alleging that N.A.
died because of a febrile seizure (a seizure triggered by a
fever) caused by the MMRV vaccine. The case was as-
signed to a special master, who held an entitlement
hearing on July 12 and 13, 2022, where both petitioners
and the Secretary of Health and Human Services present-
ed testimony and thereafter filed briefs. Because N.A.’s
death was an off-Table injury, petitioners were required
to prove a causation theory under the three prongs from
Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services,
418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioners’ theory was
that the vaccine caused N.A. to have a febrile seizure that
led to her death. The parties stipulated that the
“MMRV[] vaccine can cause febrile seizures” and
“[m]ost . . . MMRV[] vaccine related seizures occur 7 to
10 days after a child has received the MMRV vaccine.”
App’x 95. They also stipulated that “N.A.’s older broth-
er . . . experienced febrile seizures” on two occasions.
App’x 94–95.
On November 29, 2023, the special master concluded
that petitioners “failed to provide preponderant evidence
1 Citations to the App’x refer to the Corrected Ap-
pendix filed by petitioners at Dkt. No 20 in No. 2024-
2161.
Case: 24-2161 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 3 of 8 --

ANKLAM v. HHS 4
that N.A.’s MMRV vaccine caused her death.” App’x 3.
This decision primarily rested on two findings; first, that
petitioners did not present preponderant evidence that
N.A. suffered a seizure; and second, that petitioners did
not present preponderant evidence that the MMRV vac-
cine can cause a seizure which can lead to death under
Althen prong one.
On December 29, 2023, the Anklams petitioned the
Claims Court to review the special master’s decision. On
January 4, 2024, after the special master’s decision, and
after petitioners sought review from the Claims Court, a
new medical article was published connecting unex-
plained sudden deaths in children to unobserved seizures
(the “Gould article”).2 The Gould article examined seven
videos of toddlers with unexplained sudden deaths’ last
sleep period and found that six of these videos showed
clear evidence of the seizures, suggesting a link between
unexplained sleep-related deaths and seizures. Two of
the cases were associated with fevers. On January 16,
2024, petitioners filed a motion to reopen the record based
on the Gould article.
On May 28, 2024, the Claims Court affirmed the spe-
cial master’s decision on the merits, finding “petitioners
did not establish the factual predicate that N.A. suffered a
febrile seizure,” App’x 75, without reaching the special
master’s second ground that there was no preponderant
evidence that the MMRV vaccine can cause febrile sei-
zures that lead to death.
In the same opinion, the Claims Court addressed peti-
tioners’ motion to reopen the record. In that respect, the
Claims Court identified four relevant factors: (1) the
2 Laura Gould, et al., Research Article: Video Anal-
yses of Sudden Unexplained Deaths in Toddlers, Neurolo-
gy, Jan. 4, 2024.
Case: 24-2161 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 4 of 8 --

ANKLAM v. HHS 5
nature of the proffered new evidence, (2) the prejudice to
the parties, (3) the length of the delay, and (4) the reason
for the delay. Vant Erve v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
39 Fed. Cl. 607, 612 (1997). The Claims Court noted,
however, that “these factors do not have equal weight,
and the first factor is paramount.” App’x 76 (citing Vant
Erve, 39 Fed. Cl. at 612). We have previously assumed
that the Vant Erve test provides the appropriate standard
for reopening the record. See Stone v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 676 F.3d 1373, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Both
petitioners and the government assume it is the correct
test.
The Claims Court denied petitioners’ motion to reopen
the record. Resting its decision on the first Vant Erve
factor, the Claims Court determined that “although the
[Gould article] is broadly relevant to the general theory of
causation, . . . . the [s]pecial [m]aster’s holding is rooted in
her finding that the evidence does not show that N.A.
suffered a seizure.” App’x 76. The Claims Court conclud-
ed that the Gould article does not speak directly to that
issue “because it does not suggest a cause for those sei-
zures nor involve any linkage to vaccinations.” App’x 77.
Accordingly, the Claims Court did not find that “the
probative value [was] sufficient to reopen the record.”
App’x 77.
Petitioners appeal. We have jurisdiction under
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f).
D ISCUSSION
“We review an appeal from the Court of Federal
Claims in a Vaccine Act case de novo, applying the same
standard of review that court applied in reviewing the
special master’s decision.” Milik v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 822 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We
review the Claims Court’s decision not to reopen the
record for abuse of discretion. See Stone, 676 F.3d
at 1385. The consequence of reopening the record would
Case: 24-2161 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 5 of 8 --

ANKLAM v. HHS 6
be to permit the parties to address the Gould article with
additional expert reports and testimony.
On appeal, petitioners argue that they provided pre-
ponderant evidence to the special master that N.A. suf-
fered a seizure in light of the parties’ stipulations and
other evidence, including that N.A. died a sudden unex-
plained death, that N.A. received an MMRV vaccine seven
days before her death, and that her brother suffered two
febrile seizures. Petitioners also argue that the special
master erred in concluding they did not present prepon-
derant evidence of a sound and reliable medical theory
explaining how the MMRV vaccine can cause a febrile
seizure that leads to death. The Claims Court did not
reach the second issue because it agreed with the special
master that petitioners did not present preponderant
evidence that N.A. suffered a seizure. We agree on the
record as it stood before the special master that the
special master did not err in concluding that petitioners
did not present preponderant evidence of a seizure.
We also see no error in the Claims Court’s decision
not to itself reopen the record. However, rather than
denying the motion outright, we conclude this case should
be remanded for the special master to consider in the first
instance whether reopening the record is appropriate in
light of the Gould article.
Since petitioners filed their motion only two days af-
ter the Gould article was published, petitioners have
satisfied factors 3 and 4 of Vant Erve. The relevant
question is whether the Gould article “is relevant and
affective of outcome.” Vant Erve, 39 Fed. Cl. at 612. “[I]f
the evidence is of marginal relevance and impact, the
burden on the moving party increases dramatically with
respect to the influence of the remaining factors. . . . On
the other hand, if the evidence is highly relevant and
clearly outcome determinative, the opposite follows—the
importance of the remaining factors diminishes.” Id.
Case: 24-2161 Document: 39 Page: 6 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 6 of 8 --

ANKLAM v. HHS 7
Here, the special master denied compensation under the
Vaccine Act because petitioners (1) “did not prove by
preponderant evidence that N.A. suffered a seizure prior
to her death,” App’x 49, and (2) “failed to provide prepon-
derant evidence of a sound and reliable theory to explain
how the MMRV vaccine can cause a seizure . . . which can
lead to death,” App’x 52. The Gould article may be rele-
vant to the second issue (an issue not addressed by the
Claims Court) but is less clearly relevant to the first.
While the Claims Court did not err in holding that reo-
pening the record was not required as a matter of law, we
think the special master should have the opportunity in
the first instance to consider whether the record should be
reopened and exercise its discretion in light of the Gould
article.
Under the statute, the special masters “provide for a
less-adversarial, expeditious, and informal proceeding for
the resolution of petitions.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(2)(A);
see also H.R. Rep. No. 101-386, at 512 (1989) (Conf. Rep.).
To that end, special masters provide “flexible and infor-
mal standards of admissibility of evidence,” 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-12(d)(2)(B), and are expected to contribute inde-
pendent expertise in “health, medicine, and public
health,” H.R. Rep. No. 101-386, at 515 (1989) (Conf. Rep.).
Given that Congress committed the fact-finding role in
vaccine cases to the special masters while also charging
them to admit evidence on a flexible basis, we think that
posing the question whether to reopen the record to the
special master best reflects the statutory purpose of the
Office of Special Masters in the unusual circumstances of
this case, including the complexity of this case, the evi-
dence supporting petitioners’ position, and the special
master’s unique knowledge of the facts.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we vacate the Claims Court’s judgment
and remand for the sole purpose of enabling the special
Case: 24-2161 Document: 39 Page: 7 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 7 of 8 --

ANKLAM v. HHS 8
master to consider the Gould article and whether the
record should be reopened for further evidence.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2161 Document: 39 Page: 8 Filed: 02/20/2026

-- 8 of 8 --