Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 4,249 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services Anchor | green | “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” | 892 |
| 2 | De Bazan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services | green | “preponderant proof that the onset of symptoms occurred within a timeframe which, given the medical understanding of the disorder's etiology, it is medically acceptable to infer causation.” | 636 |
| 3 | Broekelschen v. Secretary of Health & Human Services | green | “based on the credibility of the experts and the relative persuasiveness of their competing theories.” | 434 |
| 4 | Debra Ann Knudsen, by Her Parents and Legal Guardians, Doris P. Knudsen and Dale Knudsen v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services | green | “sound and reliable medical or scientific explanation.” | 406 |
| 5 | Althen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services | green | “medically-acceptable temporal relationship.” | 390 |
| 6 | Campbell v. Secretary of Health & Human Services | green | “like any norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule should not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for its application are weak or lacking” | 390 |
| 7 | Davis v. Secretary of Health & Human Services | green | “uniquely in this circuit, the daubert factors have been employed also as an acceptable evidentiary-gauging tool with respect to persuasiveness of expert testimony already admitted” | 329 |
| 8 | Porter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services | green | “this court has unambiguously explained that special masters are expected to consider the credibility of expert witnesses in evaluating petitions for compensation under the vaccine act” | 277 |
| 9 | Moberly v. Secretary of Health & Human Services | green | “assessments as to the reliability of expert testimony often turn on credibility determinations” | 257 |
| 10 | Doe/70 v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services | green | “given the inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and his contemporaneous medical records, the special master's decision to rely on petitioner's medical records was rational and consistent with applicable law” | 238 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.