Williams v. Boyle

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claims for fraudulent concealment and fraud were subject to Colorado’s “certificate of review” statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602
• concluding that expert testimony was required for a medical negligence claim, where the plaintiff alleged that her kidney damage “was caused by the prescribed medication”
• finding that plaintiff would require expert testimony to show nature of physician’s “duty of care with regard to diagnosis and follow up treatment”
• concluding that a certificate of review was required for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim where the plaintiff was required to prove, among other elements, a knowing misrepresentation of material fact, but that proof of such knowledge required an underlying showing of a duty of care
• concluding expert testimony was required where plaintiff alleged “that defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, which he breached by not giving appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and follow up of plaintiff’s health problems.”
• “[e]xpert testimony is required to establish a prima facie case of professional negligence in the great majority of cases”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).