Cedillo v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a court may find that there is a gap between the data and the opinion
• recognizing that a court may find that there is a gap between the data and the opinion
• holding that special masters may properly conclude under a Daubert analysis that “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.”
• holding that a special master did not “abuse his discretion in declining to grant reconsideration in view of evidence that was previously available and which did not in fact support petitioners’ position on the central issues”
• holding that the special master did not err in refusing to afford significant weight to the opinions of treating physicians “simply indicating an awareness of a temporal, not causal, relationship” between the vaccination and the condition
• holding that the special master did not err in refusing to afford significant weight to the opinions of treating physicians that “simply indicat[ed] awareness of a temporal, not causal, relationship” between the vaccination and the condition (emphasis omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).