Meda v. Brown

How courts have described this case

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

• holding an expert, as distinguished from a lay witness, may properly rely on an unsuccessful result in concluding a doctor is negligent
• holding an expert, as distinguished from a lay witness, may properly rely on an unsuccessful result in concluding a doctor is negligent
• holding an expert, as distinguished from a lay witness, may properly rely on an unsuccessful result in concluding a doctor is negligent
• explaining that apart from the occasional “obvious injury” case, expert testimony is 11 generally necessary to establish negligence and causation in a medical malpractice case
• explaining that, with respect to “obvious injuries” in medical malpractice cases, no expert testimony is required where the common knowledge of the jurors is sufficient to support an inference and finding of negligence
• apart from the occasional \obvious injury\ case, expert testimony is generally necessary to establish negligence and causation in a medical malpractice case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).