Miller v. Neiman

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that plausibility is valid as a test for Althen prong one, but not for Althen prong two
• noting that “the temporal association must relate to the pathology of the specific medical theory alleged to have caused the injury”
• explaining that a “temporal relationship alone will not demonstrate a causal link and that petitioner must posit a medical theory causally connecting the vaccine and injury”
• explaining that “a temporal relationship alone will not demonstrate the requisite causal link” and there must be “a medical theory causally connecting the vaccine and injury”
• explaining that “a temporal relationship alone will not demonstrate the requisite causal link and that petitioner must posit a medical theory causally connecting vaccine and injury”
• explaining that “a temporal relationship alone will not demonstrate the requisite causal link and that petitioner must posit a medical theory causally connecting vaccine and injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).