Zucktriegel v. Ashcroft

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a Ph.D.-holding neuropsychologist and neurotoxicologist was not a medical doctor and was thus “not qualified to diagnose the cause of [plaintiff’s] alleged symptoms”
• finding that a Ph.D.-holding neuropsychologist and neurotoxicologist was not a medical doctor and therefore was “not qualified to diagnose the cause of [plaintiff’s] alleged symptoms”
• finding that a Ph.D.-holding neuropsychologist and neurotoxicologist was not a medical doctor and was thus “not qualified to diagnose the cause of [plaintiff’s] alleged symptoms”
• finding that witness had “no scientific or technical knowledge that qualifies him to offer expert □ testimony in this case” where witness was a toxicologist, but had “no expert training with regard to the toxicity of the type of chemicals at issue in the case
• finding no error when district court excluded purported expert testimony from a witness who “did not arrive at his own medical opinion. Instead, he based his opinion on [another expert’s] initial report.”
• “However, as the district court properly held, Dr. Singer is not qualified to diagnose the cause of Ms. Zellars’s alleged symptoms. Dr. Singer is not a medical doctor.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).