Freightliner Corp. v. Arnold

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the board’s conclusion that, based on the totality of circumstances, the claimant’s occupational disease arose out of and in the course of his employment
• concluding, in the context of causation, that an expert’s “testimony as a whole reasonably may be read as [reaching the relevant conclusion]” and “need not be ignored merely because it fails to include ‘magic words’ such as ‘major contributing cause’” (emphasis added)
• expert testimony need not be ignored because it fails to include the “major contributing cause” language
• “expert’s testimony need not be ignored merely because it fails to include ‘magic words’ ”
• medical opinion explicitly addressed only material causation, but established that the claimant’s occupational exposure was the major cause of his need for treatment
• “An expert’s testimony need not be ignored merely because it fails to include ‘magic words’ such as ‘major contributing cause.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).