Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone provides valid foundation for causation opinion, even when no epidemiological studies, peer-reviewed published studies, animal studies, or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion
• holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone provides valid foundation for causation opinion, even when no epidemiological studies, peer-reviewed published studies, animal studies, or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion
• holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone provides valid foundation for causation opinion, even when no epidemiological studies, peer-reviewed published studies, animal studies, or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion
• holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone may provide a valid foundation for a causation opinion, even when no epidemiological studies, peer — reviewed published studies, animal studies, or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion
• holding an expert must provide some explanation of why other potential causes were not the sole cause
• stating that differential diagnosis “has widespread acceptance in the medical community, has been subject to peer review, and does not frequently lead to incorrect results”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).