Hussung v. Patel

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a temporal relationship between an event and an injury is insufficient to demonstrate causation
• rejecting the “plaintiff’s argument that the . . . temporal relationship between the injection and plaintiff’s injuries is sufficient to support an inference of causation and thus to raise a genuine issue of fact as to proximate cause”
• “if we were to conclude that contemporaneity could prove causation, we would inappropriately shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.”
• contemporaneous existence of act and injury does not create factual dispute about proximate cause
• contemporaneity does not prove causation
• contemporaneity does not prove causation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).