master performed a Daubert analysis of Dr. Sladky’s opinions provided in this case. Id. at 27. The special master acknowledged that there is some imprecision in the use of the terms credibility and reliability in Vaccine Act cases and elsewhere. Id. at 20 n. 13 (citations omitted). To the extent that the remand instructions in Contreras IV may have contributed to the special master’s decision to divorce credibility from reliability, the court regrets any ambiguity in that opinion. The court utilized both terms, credibility and reliability, in its remand instructions because each of these terms is present in precedential cases discussing the credibility of expert witnesses in the Vaccine Program. See, e.g., Porter v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 663 F.3d 1242, 1250 (Fed.Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human
holding that the special masters refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing rejection of affidavits and medical reports proffered by peti tioner but sua sponte introducing her own independent research into the record was fundamentally unfair and the special masters rulings were either inadequately explained or arbitrary and capricious holding that because the special master saw the witnesses and heard the testimony he has broad discretion in determining credibility holding that this court has unambiguously explained that special masters are expected to consider the credibility of expert witnesses in evaluating petitions for compensation under the vaccine act holding that reviewing court should accord deference to special masters decision and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the special master recognizing the jurys role in evaluating credibility