Robson v. Tinnin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant met the 13 burden of proving a prima facie case for summary judgment by showing that plaintiff had no expert to testify to the applicable standard of care and breach by defendant
• requiring expert testimony for allegations of negligence related to the changing of dental implants and treatment of a fractured tooth
• rejecting an argument that assumed that “simply because treatment is available for a medical injury, it follows that it is negligence for a medical care provider not to provide the treatment”
• rejecting argument that assumed that “simply because treatment is available for a medical injury, it follows that it is negligence for a medical care provider not to provide the treatment”
• matters relating to the changing of dental implants and treatment of fractured teeth are not matters of common knowledge
• matters relating to the changing of dental implants and treatment of fractured teeth were not matters of common knowledge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).