Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Revels v. Pohle, 418 P.2d 364.

35 citing documents.

Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists Ariz. 2024
–11 (1966) (stating further that “expert testimony is not required where ‘the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layman would have no difficulty in recognizing it’” ()).
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
” Asphalt Eng’rs, -36 (App. 1989), or the allegedly negligent 8 FONG v. CITY OF PHOENIX, et al. Opinion of the Court “act or omission comes within the realm of common knowledge,” ().
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Expert testimony is necessary to prove professional negligence when “the question to be *321 determined is strictly within the special and technical knowledge of the profession and not within the knowledge of the average layman.”
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
An exception to the general rule requiring the use of expert medical testimony occurs where “the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layman would have no difficulty in recognizing it.” Riedisser, 111 Ariz. at 544 , 534 P.2d at 1054
Cooke v. Berlin 735 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rudy v. Meshorer 706 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Rudy v. Meshorer 706 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
in which a large cloth sack was left in a woman’s , in which pieces of steel sutures were left in a patient after an operation.
Carranza v. Tucson Medical Center 662 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Carranza v. Tucson Medical Center 662 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Hales v. Pittman 576 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1978
Hales v. Pittman 576 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1978
Morrell v. St. Luke's Medical Center 556 P.2d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Morrell v. St. Luke's Medical Center 556 P.2d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
REQUIREMENT OE EXPERT WITNESSES Even though appellant concedes that this is not the caliber of case allowing application of res ipsa loquitur, , , *490 he contends that requiring him to produce an expert to prove his complaint allegations of medical negligence denies him equal protection of the law.
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
*290 , , Peterson v. Salt River Project Agr.
Riedisser v. Nelson 534 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1975
Riedisser v. Nelson 534 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1975
(rag left in abdomen of patient for two years).
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
for the same reason where steel sutures were left in the patient.
Hoeffel v. Campbell 494 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hoeffel v. Campbell 494 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Plaintiffs contend that the facts show a gross disregard by Dr. Campbell of Mrs. Hoeffel’s complaints of abdominal pain following the operation, thus making this a case in which malpractice could be found in the absence of any medical testimony
Kleinman v. Armour 470 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Kleinman v. Armour 470 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
and Boyce v. Brown, supra.
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Horn, 4 Ariz.App.
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company 431 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company 431 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
155 , Revels *218 v. Phole
State v. Horn 422 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Horn 422 P.2d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966