Hazlehurst v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court should not “second-guess the [S]pecial Master’s fact-intensive conclusions, particularly where the medical evidence of causation is in dispute.”
• noting that a reviewing court may not “second-guess the special master’s fact-intensive conclusions, particularly where the medical evidence of causation is in dispute”
• explaining that the Special Master “accord[ed] little weight” to the evidence because of the study’s severe and several shortcomings
• noting that a reviewing court presumes that the fact finder has considered all the material in the record, whether or not it is mentioned in his or her decision
• noting that a reviewing court presumes that the fact finder has considered all of the material in the record, regardless of whether it is mentioned in his or her decision
• noting that a reviewing court presumes that the fact finder has considered all of the material in the record, regardless of whether it is mentioned in his or her decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).