Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the medical malpractice statute does not violate Article I, Section 23, either by requiring malpractice claims to first be reviewed by a medical panel or by capping damages at $500,000
• concluding that the medical malpractice statute does not violate Article I, Section 23, either by requiring malpractice claims to first be reviewed by a medical panel or by capping damages at $500,000
• noting that the relationship of health care provider and patient imposed a common law legal duty upon the health care provider
• noting that the relationship of health care provider and patient imposed a common law legal duty upon the health care provider
• reaching this conclusion but stating that it was not binding precedent
• declining to rely on a case from another jurisdiction where the statute had a “clear penal nature” to “establish the proposition of law that the void for vagueness doctrine is applicable to testing non-penal statutes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).