Walsh v. Principal Life Insurance

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 testifying beyond the scope of treatment “must still file a full blown expert report under 26(a)(2)(B)”
• finding that Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(2)(C) treating physician disclosure was insufficient and a full blown expert report was required with regard to the opinions proffered in paragraphs three, four, and five of Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosure
• observing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules and Commentary, which notes that “there is no reason to conclude that Rule 26(a)(2)(C

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).