Fitzsimon v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court erred in excluding an expert affidavit simply because the out-of-area expert claimed to have learned the applicable standard of care by consulting with an anonymous local expert
• holding that the medical expert must show familiarity with the standard of health care practice for the relevant medical specialty, during the relevant timeframe, and in the community where the care was provided by explaining how the expert became familiar with the standard of care
• “[A] conclusory statement of familiarity with the applicable standard of health care practice, without identifying the manner in which such familiarity was developed, is insufficient to establish foundation for the admissibility of [the expert’s] testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).