Cornfeldt v. Tongen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was erroneous to exclude the expert testimony of a nurse in a malpractice action against doctors solely because the nurse did not have the similar credentials and education as the doctors
• holding that it was erroneous to exclude the expert testimony of a nurse in a malpractice action against doctors solely because the nurse did not have the similar credentials and education as the doctors
• holding expert’s consultations with surgeons enabled him to testify about the suitability of a patient for surgery
• recognizing physician’s duty to inform patients of treatment risks
• affirming exclusion of testimony of gastroenterologist and pathologist about the actions of an anesthesiologist
• no liability for failure to disclose if doctor \did not know of risk and had no duty to know of it.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).