the same as evidence of a medically-aeceptable time-frame. The former requires Jessie to muster favorable, preponderant evidence of a majority or consensus view as to when a vaccine injury could occur at the earliest; the latter requires Jessie to show that a medically-aeceptable time-frame for the onset of his type of illness includes a twenty-four hour post-vaccination occurrence. That medically-aeceptable time-frame may be established by reliable opinion that does not perfectly match the dominant or consensus view in the medical community. See Althen, 418 F.3d at 1279 (rejecting as too stringent a requirement of “confirmation of medical plausibility from the medical community and literature”); see also Simanski v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 671 F.3d 1368, 1384 (Fed.Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). By crafting a heightened standard for Althen
holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact holding that the petitioners expert in that case had created a material issue of fact as to whether an earlier onset of the disease than that generally accepted in the medical literature was  medically acceptable quoting de bazan 539 f3d at 1352 holding that res judicata does not bar litigation of a claim pleaded in an earlier case if the record of the case shows that the court refused to decide the issue holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case