In the present case, the two sides have adduced conflicting expert testimony. Further, there is simply no reliable evidence, other than the epidemiological evidence, upon which I could base an inference of causation. Thus, I cannot apply the robust and pragmatic approach as it was outlined in Aristorenas v. Comcare Health Services to draw an inference of causation. In that case, the court stated that “a series of facts and circumstances established by the evidence led at trial may enable the trial judge to draw an inference even though medical and scientific expertise cannot arrive at a definitive conclusion”.[134] In the present case, the “series of facts and circumstances” upon which I could base such an inference is absent. The only reliable evidence of causation is epidemiological evidence, and I have interpreted that evidence consistently with how it is treated by qualified experts in the medical and scientific communities.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.