Cotten v. Phillips

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that OCGA § 24-9-67.1 does not require that a physician practice in the same specialty in order to testify regarding breach of the standard of care by the defendant physician
• holding that ultimate issue was not whether orthopedic surgeon negligently performed surgery, but whether he negligently failed to assess plaintiff’s vascular issues and, therefore, vascular surgeon was qualified to testify
• holding that ultimate issue was not whether orthopedic surgeon negligently performed surgery, but whether he negligently failed to assess plaintiff’s vascular issues and, therefore, vascular surgeon was qualified to testify
• holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in finding that vascular surgeon was qualified to testify as to orthopedic surgeon’s failure to properly assess, monitor, and respond to patient’s vascular condition during orthopedic treatment and surgery
• explaining deference accorded to decision of district court to admit or exclude expert testimony under Daubert
• recognizing trial court’s role as gatekeeper of expert testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).