A trial judge faced with competing expert medical opinions on causation is entitled to prefer the opinion based on clinical experience over one based on the absence of support in the medical literature, provided the judge identifies the factors supporting the preference. Evidence which does not permit clear scientific proof of causation may still permit a judgment as to causation on the balance of probabilities. The fact that an expert's evidence was tested in oral cross-examination is a relevant factor supporting the weight given to that evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.