Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the presence or absence of a dose-response relationship. Defendant memorandum (doc. 585), at 1, 20. Dr. Kramer is an epidemiologist, having received a Ph.D. in the same from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in 1979. Expert Report of Kramer, submitted as plaintiff ex. 016185, at 6. “Epidemiology, a field that concerns itself with finding the causal nexus between external factors and disease, is generally considered to be the best evidence of causation in toxic tort actions.” Rider v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 295 F.3d 1194, 1198 (11th Cir.2002). In Rider, the Eleventh Circuit added that “[t]his Court has long held that epidemiology is not required to prove causation in a toxic tort case.” Id., at 1199; citing Wells v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 788 F.2d 741, 745 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Although she performed no independent studies 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a causeeffect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies (B) holding that agreements established agency relationship (C) holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established (D) holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts (E) holding coleman injunction is not clearly established law
Output (English): holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts