SAIF Corp. v. Strubel

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an expert’s opinion need not be ignored because it fails to include the magic words “major contributing cause”
• holding that an expert’s opinion need not be ignored because it fails to include the magic words “major contributing cause”
• “We have stated that an expert’s opinion need not be ignored merely because it fails to include magic words.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
• whether a preexisting condition or on-the-job injury is the major contributing cause of a worker's condition is the sort of complex medical question that ordinarily requires expert testimony
• medical opinion that did not explicitly weigh all contributing causes of injury established work was major cause of need for treatment when evaluated in context of record as a whole
• given the context of the doctor’s opinion and the record as a whole, it was reasonable for the board to interpret the doctor’s use of the word “symptoms” to mean the claimant’s current need for treatment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).