Robinson v. Gilman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an expert report must explain how a breach of the standard of care occurred
• concluding that statement in expert report that breach of standard of care “in reasonable medical probability resulted in [injury]” was insufficient
• holding that expert report offered “no more than a bare assertion” that breach “resulted in increased pain and suffering and a prolonged hospital stay”
• holding that the expert’s causation testimony is “legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict” and therefore, “the Casases failed to prove causation”
• holding that the expert’s causation testimony is “legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict” and therefore, “the Casases failed to prove causation”
• recognizing that “when the evidence equally supports two alternatives” it is “no more than a scintilla and, in legal effect, is no evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).