Task: songer_weightev

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
Appellant Albert Zeck brought this action against the United States under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. (FTCA) and the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 247b(k)(l)(A) et seq. (Swine Flu Act) alleging that he suffered a stroke resulting from receipt of the swine flu vaccine. Appellant Nancy Zeck filed an action under the FTCA and the Swine Flu Act for loss of consortium based upon the injury to her spouse. Following remand to the United States District Court, 559 F.Supp. 1345, for the District of South Dakota both actions were tried together before the Honorable Donald J. Porter. After a five day trial, the court rendered judgment for the United States. This appeal followed.
The district court found that the Zecks failed to carry their burden of showing a causal connection between the swine flu shot and Mr. Zeck’s stroke. The court held that the clear weight of the evidence supported the government’s position that Mr. Zeck’s symptoms were compatible with those seen in anyone suffering from a brain stem stroke. The court further held that there was scarcely any evidence in the record which would justify finding in favor of the Zecks. The court stated that to make such a finding it would be necessary to discount the evidence which portrayed Mr. Zeck as an individual who had a history of vascular disease in his family, smoked heavily, was under considerable stress, and was probably mildly hypertensive.
We have carefully studied the record, including the district court’s opinion, the briefs and the arguments of the parties to this action. We find that the judgment of the district court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears therein. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 14 of the rules of this court on the basis of Judge Porter’s opinion.
. On February 28, 1978, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all swine flu cases be transferred to the District of Columbia for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1978).

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A