Bell v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• Because expert’s report that there was “no evidence of negligence” did not put plaintiff on notice that expert would testify that plaintiff was not in fact injured, testimony to this effect should have been precluded under Rule 212
• Because expert's report that there was \no evidence of negligence\ did not put plaintiff on notice that expert would testify that plaintiff was not in fact injured, testimony to this effect should have been precluded under Rule 212

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).