Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): While Smith was under general anesthesia, Geld-zahler found a completely normal range of motion and positioning and did not depart from accepted standards of medical treatment. (Id.) There was no medical indication, no objective medical evidence, to support performing the surgical procedure, an eminectomy, based upon the Smith’s presentation at that time. (Id.) The consent form, dated September 27, 2004, and signed by Smith, attested to his knowledge of the manipulation procedure. This evidence directly refutes Smith’s contention that he believed he was going to undergo an eminectomy on that date. Furthermore, even had Smith preferred to undergo an eminectomy, that does not establish that there was a departure on behalf of WCMC. See Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 703 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). “In a medical malpractice action, expert 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference (B) holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court (C) holding that the mere fact that the fda does not require a warning on a product label does not necessarily create a conflict (D) holding that rcw 1040200 does not create a constitutional right to be advised of immigration consequences therefore failure to comply with statute does not create constitutional harm (E) holding that mere disagreement over the proper treatment does not create a constitutional claim
Output (English): holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court