Waste-To-Energy Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

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 plaintiff conflated his proposed expert doctor’s expertise in diagnosis with a doctor’s expertise in etiology, remarking that “most treating physicians have more training in and experience with diagnosis than etiology”
• stating that an expert’s opinion must be rejected if the expert failed to rule out alternative causes of the plaintiffs illness
• stating that the term \idiopathic\ is \another way of saying the medical community does not know why a given individual has the disease\
• concluding differential etiology opinion of bellwether plaintiff's specific causation expert was unreliable at trial because idiopathic causation accounted for \the vast majority\ of cases of plaintiff's claimed disease
• holding district court erred in admitting neurologist’s causation opinion because he ″never explained how he made the leap″ of faith from general causation to specific causation
• stating that speculation does not amount to “scientific knowledge” under Evidence Rule 702

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).