United Statesa v. Lewis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that despite his experience in treating carbon monoxide poisoning, plaintiff’s expert was not equivalently credentialed because he specialized in internal, preventative, and hyperbaric medicine, whereas defendant physician specialized in family and emergency medicine
• stating that except in limited circumstances not relevant to this appeal, the standard of care must be established by expert testimony
• recognizing appellate courts review summary judgment motions de novo and accord no deference to the judge's conclusions on issues of law
• recognizing appellate courts review summary judgment motions de novo, and accord no deference to the judge's conclusions on issues of law
• explaining that plaintiff’s medical experts must possess the statutory credentials necessary to testify against defendant physicians”
• advising that in order to understand a statute it is important to \view the statute's constituent parts to see how each piece operates within the overall scheme\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).