Gasiorowski v. Hose

How courts have described this case

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

• holding evidence showing doctor’s epidural privileges were suspended from July 1989 until September 1990 was relevant as habit evidence that he improperly administered an epidural in April 1988
• explaining an abuse of discretion must result in demonstrable prejudice to a complaining party to be considered reversible error
• other similar incidents relevant to show defendant physician had habit or routine practice of threading epidural catheters to excessive depth
• “Exclusion of evidence, though improper, is not grounds for reversal if ‘in all probability its admission 6 TONDU, et al. v. STATE FARM Decision of the Court would not have changed the result.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).