Bland v. Verizon Wireless, (VAW) L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because most cases of plaintiffs condition are of unknown origin, expert could not properly conclude, based on differential diagnosis, that plaintiffs exposure to freon was probable cause of her condition
• holding there was “simply too great an analytical gap” to support admissibility where expert lacked knowledge of the degree of plaintiff’s exposure to toxin (citation omitted)
• holding there was “simply too great an analytical gap” to support admissibility where expert lacked knowledge of the degree of plaintiff’s exposure to toxin (citation omitted)
• stating that “a ‘differential diagnosis [is] a technique that identifies the cause of a medical condition by eliminating the likely causes until the most probable cause is isolated.”’
• affirming the district court’s exclusion of a doctor’s causation opinion which lacked grounds for determining whether Plaintiff was exposed to a sufficient dose of toxins
• affirming the district court’s exclusion of a doctor’s causation opinion which lacked grounds for determining whether Plaintiff was exposed to a sufficient dose of toxins

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).