Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Riedisser v. Nelson, 534 P.2d 1052.

62 citing documents.

Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
at *3 ¶ 10 (-45 (1975)).
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
The Arizona Supreme Court has made clear that the medical profession’s custom to warn must usually be established by expert medical testimony and depends “upon the circumstances of the particular case.” - 45 (1975) (citation omitted); see also Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C., ¶ 39 (2009) (“[E]xpert testimony is usually required to establish the standard of care.”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
Curtis v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Curtis v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
As an exception to the general rule requiring expert testimony, the standard of care need not be established by expert medical testimony if the negligence is “so grossly apparent that a layman would have no difficulty in recognizing it.”
Seidman v. Weiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Seidman v. Weiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(expert testimony is required in professional negligence cases “unless the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layman would have no difficulty in recognizing it”).
Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hallford-Brown v. Veolia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
253, 255 (App. 1994) (citation omitted); see, e.g., Hunter Contracting Co., -21 (App. 1997) (“Expert testimony is necessary to prove professional negligence when question to be determined is strictly within the special and technical knowledge of the profession and not within the knowledge of the average layman.”) (citation omitted); (“Negligence on the part of a physician must be established by expert medical testimony unless the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layman would have no diff
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n a 8 NORTH et al. v. VPS et al. Decision of the Court particular trade or profession,” and the negligence is not “so grossly apparent that a layman would have no difficulty in recognizing it,” Bell, 157 Ariz. at 195 n.1 (), expert testimony is required “as to the care and competence prevalent in the business or profession,” St.
Brown v. Jcl Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brown v. Jcl Network Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(if the matter is not one “of common knowledge among laymen; expert testimony is required”); (“The function of an expert witness is to provide testimony on subjects that are beyond the common sense, experience
Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(providing that expert testimony is required in professional negligence cases, unless the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layperson would have no difficulty in recognizing it).
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. v. Old Pueblo Anesthesia, Pc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
8 Nelson, McWain v. Tucson Gen.
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
“[T]he duty of disclosure of the risks by the physician or surgeon is measured by the usual practices of the medical profession.”
Asphalt Engineers, Inc. v. Galusha 770 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Asphalt Engineers, Inc. v. Galusha 770 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Peacock v. Samaritan Health Service 765 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Peacock v. Samaritan Health Service 765 P.2d 525 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
our supreme court reaffirmed the holding in Abernethy v. Smith, 17 Ariz.App.
Bell v. Maricopa Medical Center 755 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Bell v. Maricopa Medical Center 755 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Expert medical testimony is not required in cases where “the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layman would have no difficulty in recognizing it.”
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Haldiman v. Gosnell Development Corp. 748 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Darner Motor Sales, , , , are, for instance, cases involving professionals (insurance broker and physicians) sued by their clients or patients.
McGrady v. Wright 729 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
McGrady v. Wright 729 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Darner Motor Sales, , , , are, for instance, cases involving professionals (insurance broker and physicians) sued by their clients or patients.
McWain v. Tucson General Hosp. 670 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
McWain v. Tucson General Hosp. 670 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
stated: "The question of a physician's skill or failure to use his skill is a material question of fact, and on a motion for summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must show that at trial, [sic] he would be able to show evidence that the physician lacked or did not apply the proper ski
Drummond v. Stahl 618 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Drummond v. Stahl 618 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Hunter v. Benchimol 601 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1979
Hunter v. Benchimol 601 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1979
Scopellite v. Needham 596 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Scopellite v. Needham 596 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Pendleton v. Cilley 574 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1978
Pendleton v. Cilley 574 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1978
Pollard v. Goldsmith 572 P.2d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Pollard v. Goldsmith 572 P.2d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rodriguez v. Jackson 574 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Rodriguez v. Jackson 574 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
539 , 173 A.2d 333 (1961); , Morrell v. St.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by