Mengelson v. Ingalls Health Ventures

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it is essential that plaintiff present expert testimony establishing that person conducting the blood draw was negligent and the negligence caused the injury
• noting that it is essential that plaintiff present expert testimony establishing that person conducting the blood draw was negligent and the negligence caused the injury
• “[i]t is well established that issues involving proximate cause are fact specific and therefore uniquely for the jury’s determination”
• plaintiff failed to prove proximate cause where testimony showed the possibility of contracting RSD from defendant’s breach of the standard of care was 1 in 6 million
• “It is well established that issues involving proximate cause are fact specific and therefore uniquely for the jury’s determination.”
• \[i]t is well established that issues involving proximate cause are fact specific and therefore uniquely for the jury's determination\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).