physician breached standard (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

physician breached standard in Alabama

9 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2008 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Schuffert v. Morgangreen
ala · 2000 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002See, e.g., Schuffert v. Morgan, 777 So.2d 87, 91 (Ala.2000) ("the plaintiff must prove by expert medical testimony that the physician breached the standard of care and by the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury"), citing University of Alabama Health Servs.

2002See, e.g., Schuffert v. Morgan, 777 So.2d 87, 91 (Ala.2000) ("the plaintiff must prove by expert medical testimony that the physician breached the standard of care and by the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury”), citing University of Alabama Health Servs.

22
Levesque v. Regional Medical Center Bd.green
ala · 1993 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994Levesque v. Regional Medical Center Bd., 612 So.2d 445, 448 (Ala.1993); Dobbs v. Smith, 514 So.2d 871 (Ala.1987).

1994Levesque v. Regional Medical Center Bd., 612 So.2d 445, 448 (Ala. 1993); Dobbs v. Smith, 514 So.2d 871 (Ala. 1987).

22
Complete Family Care v. Sprinklegreen
ala · 1994 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1997–1998
2 sentences

1998University of Alabama Health Services Foundation v. Bush, 638 So.2d 794 (Ala.1994). ‘To establish a physician’s negligence, the plaintiff ordinarily must proffer expert medical testimony as to what is or is not the proper practice, treatment, or procedure.’ Complete Family Care v. Sprinkle, 638 So.2d 774, 777 (Ala.1994)....

1997University of Alabama Health Services Foundation v. Bush , 638 So.2d 794 (Ala. 1994). 'To establish a physician's negligence, the plaintiff ordinarily must proffer expert medical testimony as to what is or is not the proper practice, treatment, or procedure.' Complete Family Care v. Sprinkle , 638 So.2d 774 , 777 (Ala. 1994). . . .

12
Allred v. Shirleygreen
ala · 1992 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002Found, v. Bush, 638 So.2d 794 (Ala.1994). [4] Section 6-5-540 states that the Legislature's expressed intent in enacting the AMLA was to restrict "the threat of legal actions for alleged medical injury causes." [5] The judicially recognized exceptions to § 6-5-548, before the majority issued its opinion today, were as follows: "`"1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authorita

11
Holt v. Godsilgreen
ala · 1984 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002Found, v. Bush, 638 So.2d 794 (Ala.1994). [4] Section 6-5-540 states that the Legislature's expressed intent in enacting the AMLA was to restrict "the threat of legal actions for alleged medical injury causes." [5] The judicially recognized exceptions to § 6-5-548, before the majority issued its opinion today, were as follows: "`"1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authorita

11
Hawkins v. Carrollgreen
alacivapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998“In order to recover in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must prove by expert testimony that the physician breached the standard of care and by the breach proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.” Hawkins v. Carroll, 676 So.2d 338, 340 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); University of Alabama Health Services v. Bush, 638 So.2d 794 , 798-99 (Ala.1994).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
UNIV. OF ALA. HEALTH SERVICES v. Bush green
ala · 1994
2 sentences

2008Found. v. Bush, 638 So.2d 794 , 798 (Ala.1994).

1998“In order to recover in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must prove by expert testimony that the physician breached the standard of care and by the breach proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.” Hawkins v. Carroll, 676 So.2d 338, 340 (Ala.Civ.App.1996); University of Alabama Health Services v. Bush, 638 So.2d 794 , 798-99 (Ala.1994).

71996–2008
Dobbs v. Smith green
ala · 1987
2 sentences

1994Levesque v. Regional Medical Center Bd., 612 So.2d 445, 448 (Ala.1993); Dobbs v. Smith, 514 So.2d 871 (Ala.1987).

1994Levesque v. Regional Medical Center Bd., 612 So.2d 445, 448 (Ala. 1993); Dobbs v. Smith, 514 So.2d 871 (Ala. 1987).

21994–1994
Anderson v. Alabama Reference Laboratories green
ala · 2000
1 sentence

2002Found, v. Bush, 638 So.2d 794 (Ala.1994). [4] Section 6-5-540 states that the Legislature's expressed intent in enacting the AMLA was to restrict "the threat of legal actions for alleged medical injury causes." [5] The judicially recognized exceptions to § 6-5-548, before the majority issued its opinion today, were as follows: "`"1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authorita

12002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 6-5-540 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 6-5-548 (5) AL § Ala. Code § 6-5-542 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 11 (2001–2012) AL 9 (1994–2008) VA 6 (2017–2024) MI 5 (2013–2022) MD 4 (2011–2024) TN 3 (2009–2012) IA 2 (2021–2021) CA 2 (1988–2003) KS 2 (1999–2009)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check