Creekmore v. Maryview Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that judgment will not be set aside based on erroneous admission of evidence unless “justice so requires or a party’s substantial rights are affected”
• finding no abuse -7- Roscoe’s opinion was also cumulative. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Her testimony paralleled two other experts: Dr. Wright (offered through the transcript of his deposition
• noting the critical distinction is whether the expert “performs the procedure at issue”
• finding no abuse of discretion where doctor testified about the nursing standard of care where the doctor “regularly perform[ed] the procedure at issue . . . and the standard of care for performing the procedure is the same” for doctors and nurses
• “It is worthwhile to point out that because this case was heard by a federal district court, the Federal Rules of Evidence would generally control the admissibility of expert witness testimony.”
• “[B]ecause the testimony at issue here was required for a medical malpractice claim under Virginia law, the sufficiency of its substance to meet plaintiff’s prima facie case is covered by state law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).