Daniels v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that “a treating physician who testifies as to her diagnosis and treatment of the patient is still giving expert testimony” pursuant to Rule 702
• precluding the proffered witnesses from testifying as experts because “the plaintiff made no disclosures regarding the [ ] [w]itnesses that are required[] under [Rule 26(a)(2)]”
• precluding the proffered witnesses from testifying as experts because \the plaintiff made no disclosures regarding the [ ] [w]itnesses that are required[ ] under [ Rule 26(a)(2) ]\
• “[A] toggle bolt type anchor is not the correct way to install a handrail.”
• “I don’t think I have ever seen a toggle bolt used for a handrail.”
• “Thus, if the plaintiff wishes her doctors to testify as to her ‘diagnosis and the treatment prescribed,’ as she has proffered, that testimony is properly classified as ‘expert testimony’ and subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(C).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).