Broders v. Heise

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that general medical expertise did not qualify physician to testify on causation without proof that he had experience or training in neurosurgery
• holding that a witness’s qualification depends on “whether the expert’s expertise goes to the very matter on which he or she is to give an opinion.”
• holding that absent clear abuse of discretion, supreme court will not disturb trial court’s ruling on qualification of expert witness
• holding that general medical expertise did not qualify physician to testify on causation without proof that he had experience or training in neurosurgery
• concluding that the trial court properly excluded expert testimony where the proponent failed to establish that the physician was qualified to opine “on cause in fact”
• holding that a witness’s qualification depends on “whether the expert’s expertise goes to the very matter on which he or she is to give an opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).