Murphy v. Russell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statute requires that claims that might involve a health care standard of care will be subject to 4590i
• holding that breach of contract claim based on breach of agreement by anesthesiologist not to administer general anesthesia was health care liability claim because circumstances during surgery may have warranted the conduct
• holding that medical battery claim required expert report under former article 4590i because expert testimony necessary regarding whether health care provider had any reasons for performing unconsented-to procedure that did not breach standard of care
• recognizing that a physician's performance of a medical procedure without prior informed consent may not necessarily result in liability if circumstances exist which, under the applicable standard of care, justify the conduct, and expert testimony may be needed to determine that
• recognizing that a physician’s performance of a medical procedure without prior informed consent may not necessarily result in liability if circumstances exist which, under the applicable standard of care, justify the conduct, and expert testimony may be needed to determine that
• holding that claims for breach of contract, battery, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on alleged breach by anesthesiologist of his agreement not to administer general anesthesia to patient were health care liability claims under former article 4590i

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).