Court Opinion

ID: 9413578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 23:14:41.187064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:46:15.985738
License: Public Domain

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The only question before us is not whether “A Mark for Me” was in fact sore, but whether there is substantial evidence to support the USDA’s decision that the horse was sore. Based on the two VMO’s “objective” opinions, see maj. op. at 6 (acknowledging objectivity of VMOs), I would hold that there is substantial evidence,1 and, accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. See Crawford v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 50 F.3d 46 (D.C.Cir.1995) (noting that the relevant standard was the law at the time of the events at issue, and holding that "we have no legitimate basis to reject digital palpation as a diagnostic technique, whether used alone or not, prior to the passage of the [new law]” that rejected digital palpation as a sole diagnostic method).