People v. Treman

How courts have described this case

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

• granting judgment n.o.v. to the defendant since the proposed expert “did not testify to anything more than his own, personal standard of care”
• testimony by expert that he would have treated patient differently than the defendant did not meet standard for imposing liability
• insufficient evidence to establish the standard of care with respect to the use of Didronel on brain-injured patients in 1981, the time of the alleged negligent conduct
• expert’s omission was not a lack of “magic words,” but “rather the absence of any statement by the plaintiffs’ sole expert to the effect that [physician’s] failure ... was a deviation from the standard of care or from acceptable medical practices”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).