Haars v. Oelberg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an expert in rehabilitation counseling could rely upon medical personnel, social workers and psychologists “in order to get the full picture” to determine the future health care expenses of an injured child, because such reliance was customary in her field
• concluding “the fact that [an ANSI s]tandard has not been officially adopted as a regulation” did not “destroy its relevance as articulating a standard of care”
• concluding “the fact that [an ANSI standard has not been officially adopted as a regulation” did not “destroy its relevance as articulating a standard of care”
• applying Rule 2-519 to exclude appellate issue when argument on motion for judgment as too general
• applying Rule 2-519 to exclude appellate issue when argument on motion for judgment as too general
• rejecting the appellant’s argument that a life care planner’s testimony should have been excluded because “there was no medical evidence from qualified medical experts sufficient to support it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).