C.F.R. » Title 42 » CHAPTER I—PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER H—HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES › PART 93—PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT › Subpart A—General

42 C.F.R. § 93.105

Evidentiary standards

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Standard of proof. An institutional or HHS finding of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

(b) Burden of proof. (1) The institution or HHS has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. A respondent's destruction of research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the institution or HHS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally or knowingly destroyed records after being informed of the research misconduct allegations. A respondent's failure to provide research records documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the respondent claims to possess the records but refuses to provide them upon request.

(2) The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, all affirmative defenses raised. In determining whether HHS or the institution has carried the burden of proof imposed by this part, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.

(3) The respondent has the burden of going forward with and proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any mitigating factors relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions after a research misconduct proceeding.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: Uzelmeier v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 541 F. Supp. 2d 241 (D.D.C. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Uzelmeier v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 541 F. Supp. 2d 241 (D.D.C. 2008). “As the ALJ noted, and plaintiff now seems to concede, the currently applicable six-year statute of limitations does not apply to this proceeding because the misconduct at issue predates the effective date of the statute of limitations regulation.”
Yoon v. Garg (5th Cir. 2024). “See 42 C.F.R. § 93.105 (a). In conducting the investigation, the committee also sought and obtained two extensions from ORI regarding the final report deadline, as permitted in the PHS policies.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.