Craft v. Peebles

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action carries the burden of proving negligence by reference to expert medical testimony
• holding that a manufacturer’s insert, in and of itself, may not establish the relevant standard of care in a medical negligence action, but may be considered by the fact finder “along with expert testimony” to define the standard of care
• explaining that court properly reversed its in limine ruling because “evidence admitted during the plaintiffs case[-]in[-]chief 'opened the door' to the cross-examination regarding her alleged substance abuse”
• explaining that expert testimony is required to establish the applicable standard of care in a medical negligence case
• holding, in a negligence case, that it was proper to instruct the jury to disregard any medical opinion “that was not based upon reasonable medical probabilities” (emphasis added)
• holding, in a negligence ease, that it was proper to instruct the jury to disregard any medical opinion “that was not based upon reasonable medical probabilities” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).