Doe v. CENTRAL IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM

How courts have described this case

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

• holding expert testimony was necessary to show causation in a case where the plaintiff had undergone prior méntal injuries that may have caused his injury
• recognizing a duty may arise pursuant to a statutory enactment
• recognizing a duty may arise pursuant to a statutory enactment
• requiring evidence of the theory of causation to be “reasonably probable—not merely possible, and more probable than any other hypothesis based on such evidence.”
• noting expert medical testimony is required unless “the plaintiff's injury is within the knowledge and experience of an ordinary layperson”
• contrasting a throat incision and bleeding, where a layperson would understand causation, with multiple falls and multiple back injuries, where a layperson would be unable to determine which fall caused which injury without the aid of expert testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).