With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". theory was a scientifically valid method to determine the cause of brachial plexus injuries and differential diagnosis was a scientifically valid way to apply that theory); Silong v. United States, No. CVFO6-0474 LJODLB, 2007 WL 2535126 (E.D.Cal. Aug.31, 2007) (permitting expert testimony regarding a computer simulation to demonstrate the forces of intrauterine contractions in causing brachial plexus injury because the study had been published in peer-reviewed journals and had gained acceptance in the medical and biomedical communities); Potter ex rel. Potter v. Bowman, No. OSCVO0827 REBPAC, 2006 WL 3760267 (D.Colo. Dec.18, 2006) (admitting expert testimony regarding the intrauterine forces theory and finding the theory reliable); Sailvant v. State, 935 So.2d 646, 656-57 (La.2006) (<HOLDING>); D'Amore v. Cardwell, No. L-06-1342, 2008 WL

A: holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs
B: holding that there was ample evidence in the record that a brachial plexus injury can occur for unknown reasons
C: holding that where the trial court did not explicitly state reasons for rejecting defendants request for probation in lieu of conviction under vi code ann tit 5  3711c the reasons can be reasonably ascertained from the record
D: holding that petitioner must establish that she suffers from a vaccinerelated injury not merely a symptom or manifestation of an unknown injury
B.