Awsienko v. Cohen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding an internist was not qualified to render standard of care testimony regarding a cardiologist’s treatment of a patient because cardiology is a subspecialty distinct from the specialty of internal medicine
• affirming summary judgment based on deficient expert qualifications when no challenge pursuant to § 12-2603(F) was made to expert affidavit
• “[T]he legislature sought to ensure that physicians testifying as experts have sufficient expertise to truly assist the fact-finder on issues of standard of care and proximate causation.”
• “The language of 25 the statute does not require an expert testifying about the standard of care applicable to a board-certified defendant to have been board-certified at the time of the occurrence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).