Fagadau v. Wenkstern

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that although the report did not give an exact date of retinal detachment, it clearly opined that a re-examination within two weeks would have prevented the detachment
• holding expert report not conclusory because the expert’s opinions were tied to specific facts
• finding that a report stating a sufficient initial eye examination and follow-up examination within two weeks would have prevented patient’s retinal detachment was not conclusory because it described what doctor should have done and what happened because he failed to do it
• report specifically linked failure to examine properly or re-examine eye with specific injuries
• expert’s report described what ophthalmologist should have done and what happened because he failed to do it; as such, the report “clearly constitute[d] a good faith effort –18– to provide a fair summary of [the expert’s] opinions on causation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).