Nuttall v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that a treating physician was not entitled to deference when he treated the patient after the alleged vaccine injury occurred
• explaining that treating physician opinion is favored because they generally are familiar with the patient before and after the injury and are witness to the condition unfolding
• finding that a treating physician who “only saw the patient after the injury,” is not entitled to the same amount of weight as a treating physician “who had observed the patient as the condition unfolded.”
• explaining that the Federal Circuit “found that a treating physician who was familiar with the patient both before and after the alleged vaccine injury is likely to be in a better position than an expert retained after the fact” to opine with respect to vaccine causation
• explaining that the Federal Circuit “found that a treating physician who was familiar with the patient both before and after the alleged vaccine injury is likely to be in a better position than an expert retained after the fact” to opine with respect to vaccine causation
• “The reasoning underlying the finding that opinions of treating physicians should be given particular weight does not apply when, as here, the treating physician only saw the patient after the injury and based his opinion on the same evidence as relied upon by the retained experts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).