theory was a scientifically valid method to determine the cause of brachial plexus injuries and differential diagnosis was a scientifically valid way to apply that theory); Silong v. United States, No. CVFO6-0474 LJODLB, 2007 WL 2535126 (E.D.Cal. Aug.31, 2007) (permitting expert testimony regarding a computer simulation to demonstrate the forces of intrauterine contractions in causing brachial plexus injury because the study had been published in peer-reviewed journals and had gained acceptance in the medical and biomedical communities); Potter ex rel. Potter v. Bowman, No. OSCVO0827 REBPAC, 2006 WL 3760267 (D.Colo. Dec.18, 2006) (admitting expert testimony regarding the intrauterine forces theory and finding the theory reliable); Sailvant v. State, 935 So.2d 646, 656-57 (La.2006) (<HOLDING>); D'Amore v. Cardwell, No. L-06-1342, 2008 WL
holding that petitioner must establish that she suffers from a vaccinerelated injury not merely a symptom or manifestation of an unknown injury holding that where the trial court did not explicitly state reasons for rejecting defendants request for probation in lieu of conviction under vi code ann tit 5  3711c the reasons can be reasonably ascertained from the record holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs holding that there was ample evidence in the record that a brachial plexus injury can occur for unknown reasons holding that a stop was not based on reasonable suspicion where there were no facts in the record indicating that a return of unknown made it any more likely that a vehicle was uninsured rather than fully insured