Berk v. St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an expert opinion was required in a medical malpractice claim for negligent medical advice following surgery
• excluding plaintiff's expert testimony as inadmissible under Rule 702, and determining defendants' summary judgment motion based on \the admissible evidence\
• granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to present expert testimony with respect to the standard of care
• declining to hold a Daubert hearing concerning the admissibility of testimony from a treating physician
• stating that “nothing in Daubert, or any other Supreme Court or Second Circuit case, mandates that the district hold a Daubert hearing before ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony, even when such ruling is 26 dispositive of a summary judgment motion”
• “The Court will not, however, allow testimony that fails to satisfy the admissibility requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert to be considered on summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).