Hansen v. Central Iowa Hospital Corp.

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 5 indicating probability or likelihood of a causal connection is sufficient to generate a fact question on causation
• allowing expert testimony about causation without disclosure because doctor formed his opinion “as a treater”
• finding it was error for the district court to exclude doctor’s expert testimony on medical causation where the district court had concluded the evidence was not “expressed to a medical degree of certainty” and “insufficient to be admissible”
• “The rule is that expert testimony indicating probability or likelihood of a causal connection is sufficient to generate a question on causation.”
• “Buzzwords like ‘reasonable degree of medical certainty’ are therefore not necessary to generate a jury question on causation.”
• “Thus, even treating physicians may come within the parameters of [the Iowa version of rule 26] when they begin to assume a role in the litigation analogous to that of a retained expert.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).