Rittger v. Danos

How courts have described this case

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

• noting focus not on defendant doctor’s area of expertise, but on condition involved in claim
• stating that qualifications inquiry under the TMLA ″focuses not on the defendant doctor’s area of expertise, but on the condition involved in the claim,″ and holding that board-certified neurologist could testify on standard of care for emergency room physician
• noting focus is not on defendant doctor’s area of expertise, but on the condition involved in the claim
• noting focus is not on defendant doctor’s area of expertise, but on the condition involved in the claim
• neurologist qualified to provide expert opinion on standard of care or breach thereof by emergency room physician where prospective medical expert had practical knowledge of what is usually and customarily done by practitioners under similar circumstances
• neurologist qualified to provide expert opinion on standard of care or breach thereof by emergency room physician where prospective medical expert had practical knowledge of what is usually and customarily done by practitioners under similar circumstances

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).