With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". her experience of “looking at baby brains for 45 years of my life.” Id. at 306. Doctor Shane, on the other hand, insisted that neuroblasts would no longer be present in the brain of a child Mat’s age. Id. at 288. The Court could continue on in this vein, but it should by now be obvious that it takes an expert to make sense of the slides and the literature in the record. Petitioner’s expert witness identifies objects as one thing, and respondent’s expert says they are something else. The Special Master found Dr. RorkeAdams to be more credible than Dr. Shane and provided a detailed explanation for this finding. See Nordwall, 2008 WL 857661, at *8-9. It is not the job of the Court to second guess the credibility judgment of experts or to reweigh the evidence. See Bradley, 991 F.2d at 1575 (<HOLDING>). As a reasonable fact-finder could rely on Dr.

A: holding that because the special master saw the witnesses and heard the testimony he has broad discretion in determining credibility
B: holding that reviewing court should accord deference to special masters decision and may not substitute its own judgment for that of the special master
C: holding that whether and to what extent a witnesss testimony should be believed is a matter to be decided by the jury that saw and heard the testimony not by an appellate court reviewing a transcript
D: holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony
A.