With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Fed.Cl.) (“Adams ”). The court has determined that the Special Master erred, because Petitioner met the statutory burden of establishing causation in fact by a preponderance of ■ the evidence. Assuming arguendo that -burden was not met, the Government failed to establish alternative causation. The court also has determined that the Special Master erred and abused her discretion by engaging in a substantive off-the-record ex parte communication with the Government’s expert during the hearing and denying Petitioner an opportunity to respond to independent research evidence proffered by the Special Master sua sponte during the hearing. See Blank v. Dep’t of the Army, 247 F.3d 1225, 1229 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citing Stone v. Fed. Deposit Insurance Corp., 179. F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed.Cir.1999)) (<HOLDING>); see also Vaccine Rule 3(b) (A Special Master

A: holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed
B: holding that where appellant was put on notice of disciplinary charges against him and was afforded opportunity to respond to boards recommendation demands of due process were satisfied
C: holding that the introduction of new and material information by means of ex parte communications to the deciding official undermine the  constitutional due process guarantee of notice and   the opportunity to respond
D: holding that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond before imposition of rule 11 sanctions
C.