Kuxhausen v. Tillman Partners, L.P.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting medical opinion “based on nothing more than post hoc ergo propter hoc logic: the symptoms follow the exposure; therefore they must be due to it. Such reasoning is nothing more than speculation.”
• “And without expert testimony, Kuxhausen has no claim because it’s certainly not self-evident to a layperson that a relatively brief exposure to paint fumes may lead to permanent sensitivity to a variety of chemicals.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).