Panayiotou v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that interventional cardiology is a specialty and that the plaintiff’s cardiologist expert could not testify against the defendant interventional cardiologist
• holding that “if an appropriate American medical board recognizes an area of medicine as a distinct field and certifies health- care providers in that field, that area is a specialty.”
• concluding that physician board certified in internal medicine and cardiovascular disease was not similarly situated to a physician who was board certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease, and interventional cardiology
• ordering summary judgment where the plaintiff estate had failed to present testimony from a similarly situated healthcare provider

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).