that the onset of ADEM symptoms is usually rapid, but argues that an onset of four weeks after the vaccination is nevertheless “within the generally acceptable onset.” Id. at 9-10. Additionally, petitioner disputes respondent’s argument that the severity of petitioner’s symptoms was inconsistent with symptoms typically caused by ADEM. Id. at 10-12. Finally, petitioner argues that even if petitioner’s protracted course of injury was atypical, it was still within the acceptable range for ADEM. Id. at 12-18. As explained in the preceding section, petitioner has the burden of establishing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that she actually suffers from the specific injury she alleges was caused by the vaccination. Hibbard, 698 F.3d at 1365; see also Broekelschen, 618 F.3d at 1349 (<HOLDING>); Lombardi, 656 F.3d at 1553 (holding that
holding that petitioner must establish that she suffers from a vaccinerelated injury not merely a symptom or manifestation of an unknown injury holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that because fact of injury was a distinct question from quantum of injury common proof could establish classwide injury even though amount of damage to each plaintiff was uncertain