Lou. & Nash. Railroad v. Wainscott

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that the special master did not exclude evidence, and “[i]ndeed. . .took the initiative to introduce [evidence]” and gave the parties opportunity to address the new material
• referring to the different role of the special master given the unique nature of the Vaccine Program
• denying review of special master’s denial of entitlement where petitioner alleged that tetanus vaccine caused the most common GBS variant, AIDP, and respondent submitted the 2012 IOM study
• finding an interval of approximately two weeks is medically acceptable, though dismissing the petition
• “[i]n most cases, there are no definitive answers to the question of vaccine causation. The answers will come in the future, as medical science progresses”
• “[A] special master does not need to credit expert opinion testimony that is connected to the existing data or methodology only by the ipse dixit of the expert . . . .” (internal citation marks and footnote omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).