9 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Forbes v. Osteopathic Hospital of Maine, Inc.green2 sentences2016See Levesque v. Chan, 569 A.2d 600, 601 (Me. 1990) (quoting For bes v. Osteopathic Hospital ofMaine, 552 A.2d 16, 17 (Me.1988)) ('" [O]rdinarily, a plaintiff can discharge his burden of proof for a claim of negligent medical care only by expert medical testimony establishing the appropriate standard of medical care, that the defendant departed from the standard and that the negligent conduct proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.'"). 2015Lisbon Road contends that Ms. Hayes cannot prevail on her action for professional negligence without expert testimony. "[O]rdinarily a plaintiff can discharge his burden of proof for a claim of negligent medical care only by expert medical testimony establishing the appropriate standard of medical care, that the defendant departed from the standard, and that the negligent conduct proximately caused the plaintiffs injury." Forbes v. Osteopathic Hasp. of Maine, Inc., 552 A.2d 16, 17 (Me. 1988). | 4 | 4 |
Welch v. McCarthygreen2 sentences2008In cases involving medical professional negligence (i.e. medical malpractice actions) "expert testimony is ordinarily required to establish the appropriate standard of medical care, that the defendant departed from that standard, and that the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the negligent conduct." Welch, 677 A.2d at 1069 {citing Chasse v. Mazerolle, 622 A.2d 1180, 1182 (Me. 1993)). 2001Welch v. McCarthy, 677 A.2d 1066, 1069 (Me. 1996). | 2 | 3 |
Chasse v. Mazerollegreen2 sentences2008In cases involving medical professional negligence (i.e. medical malpractice actions) "expert testimony is ordinarily required to establish the appropriate standard of medical care, that the defendant departed from that standard, and that the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the negligent conduct." Welch, 677 A.2d at 1069 {citing Chasse v. Mazerolle, 622 A.2d 1180, 1182 (Me. 1993)). 1996Chasse v. Mazerolle, 622 A.2d 1180, 1182 (Me.1993). | 2 | 2 |
Levesque v. Changreen1 sentence2016See Levesque v. Chan, 569 A.2d 600, 601 (Me. 1990) (quoting For bes v. Osteopathic Hospital ofMaine, 552 A.2d 16, 17 (Me.1988)) ('" [O]rdinarily, a plaintiff can discharge his burden of proof for a claim of negligent medical care only by expert medical testimony establishing the appropriate standard of medical care, that the defendant departed from the standard and that the negligent conduct proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.'"). | 1 | 1 |
Cyr v. Giesengreen2 sentences2015"The exception to the rule is that under some circumstances where the negligence and harmful results are sufficiently obvious as to lie within common knowledge, a verdict may be supported without expert testimony." Cyr v. Giesen, 150 Me. 248, 251-52 , 108 A.2d 316, 318 (1954). 2015"The exception to the rule is that under some circumstances where the negligence and harmful results are sufficiently obvious as to lie within common knowledge, a verdict may be supported without expert testimony." Cyr v. Giesen, 150 Me. 248, 251-52 , 108 A.2d 316, 318 (1954). | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Dela Cruzgreen2 sentences1988Hamor v. Maine Coast Memorial Hosp., 483 A.2d 718, 722 (Me.1984); Cox v. Dela Cruz, 406 A.2d 620, 622 (Me.1979). 1988Hamor v. Maine Coast Memorial Hosp., 483 A.2d 718, 722 (Me.1984); Cox v. Dela Cruz, 406 A.2d 620, 622 (Me.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Hamor v. Maine Coast Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences1988Hamor v. Maine Coast Memorial Hosp., 483 A.2d 718, 722 (Me.1984); Cox v. Dela Cruz, 406 A.2d 620, 622 (Me.1979). 1988Hamor v. Maine Coast Memorial Hosp., 483 A.2d 718, 722 (Me.1984); Cox v. Dela Cruz, 406 A.2d 620, 622 (Me.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.