Paluck v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the special master erred in setting a “hard and fast” deadline of three weeks
• holding that a hard and fast deadline of three weeks for a finding of causation under similar circumstances was arbitrary
• holding a “special master erred in disregarding contemporaneous statements from [a petitioner’s] treating physicians regarding the cause of his [injury]”
• finding that “the fact that [petitioner’s] first clinically evident sign” was documented slightly outside the Table timeframe “does not preclude a finding” of causation
• finding that the special master erred in determining a period of onset for symptoms of neurodegeneration using only articles and a case study containing very few participants
• finding that it was arbitrary and capricious for the special master to make an inference that the treating physician had referred the petitioners to a neurologist simply because he was “frustrated” with the petitioners

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).