Stickleman v. Synhorst

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that no expert testimony was required on causation where evidence showed that patient began bleeding profusely from the neck after doctor inserted needle into the throat, apparently missing the intended mark and hitting a blood vessel
• finding an expert was not required to establish causation when a physician incorrectly inserted a needle into patient’s throat causing profuse bleeding
• finding it to be within the realm of common layperson knowledge that one can suffer serious blood loss due to a puncture wound to the neck
• finding it to be within the realm of common layperson knowledge that one can suffer serious blood loss due to a puncture wound to the neck
• doctor admitted that he made a mistake by missing trachea and puncturing throat with a hypodermic needle
• doctor admitted that he made a mistake by missing trachea and puncturing throat with a hypodermic needle

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).