Cited by

at 311, ¶ 15 ( ¶ 11 (App. 2004)).

8 HENKE, ET AL. v. HOSPITAL, ET AL. Opinion of the Court injury would not have occurred.” Sampson, 251 Ariz. at 311 ¶ 15 ( ¶ 11 (App. 2004)).

Causation is a question for the jury “unless reasonable persons could not conclude that a plaintiff had proved this element.” ¶ 12 (App. 2004).

“Causation is generally a question of fact for the jury unless reasonable persons could not conclude that a plaintiff had proved this element.” ¶ 12 (App. 2004).

To establish the requisite causal connection, the plaintiff’s expert is generally required to testify as to probable causes of the plaintiff's injury.” Benkendorf, 228 Ariz. at 530 ¶ 8 ( ¶ 12 (App. 2004) and citing cases).

¶17 Similarly, causation must be proved through “expert medical testimony, unless the [causal] connection is readily apparent to the trier of fact.”

¶ 12 (App. 2004), the court articulated the baseline principle that “[c]ausation in a medical malpractice action must be proved by expert testimony unless the connection between the conduct and the injury is readily apparent.” Sampson, 2019 WL 7187252, at *2 ¶ 9.

A third person’s criminal act is a superseding cause when the illegal conduct does not fall “within the recognizable risk that made the conduct negligent.” ¶ 28 (App. 2004); see also Cent.

To establish proximate cause, the plaintiff must show “a natural and continuous sequence of events stemming from the defendant’s act or omission, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, that produces an injury, in whole or in part, and without which the injury would not have occurred.” ¶ 11 (App. 2004).

¶ 11 (App. 2004), we said the following about proximate cause: A plaintiff proves proximate cause, also referred to as legal cause, by demonstrating a natural and continuous sequence of events stemming from the defendant’s act or omission, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, tha

But “[n]egligence is not actionable in the abstract,” ¶ 28 (App. 2004) (citation omitted), and the proffered affidavit failed to point out how Appellees’ negligence “caused or contributed” to the unsuccessful outcome in the Tonto Supply litigation.

To establish proximate cause, the plaintiff must show “a natural and continuous sequence of events stemming from the defendant’s act or omission, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, that produces an injury, in whole or in part, and without which the injury would not have occurred.” ¶ 11 (App. 2004).

–06 (1983); Patterson, 214 Ariz. at 438–39 ¶¶ 13–14; ¶ 11 (App. 2004).

¶14 In a medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff must establish a “causal connection between an act or omission and the ultimate injury through expert medical testimony, unless the connection is readily apparent to the trier of fact.” ¶ 12 (App. 2004).

Generally, the question of causation is for the jury to decide.5 ¶ 12 (App. 2004).

¶ 29, (finding § 457 “instructive” on whether substantial evidence supported jury’s determination that independent medical examiner’s negligence increased the risk of, and proximately caused, workers’ compensation claimant’s death); ¶¶ 17–18, (stating that “[a]lthough § 457 can apply to successive acts of medical malpractice,” no evidence showed that doctor’s consultation advice 8 CRAMER V. STARR (MUNGUIA/BEJARANO) Opinion of the

¶ 11 (App. 2004); ¶ 6 (App. 2015).

Causation is a question for the jury “unless reasonable persons could not conclude that a plaintiff had proved this element.” ¶ 12

¶ 12 (App. 2004) (explaining “[c]ausation is generally a question of fact for the jury”).