Legal Opinion

Lundgren v. Eustermann

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 12, 1985No. C8-84-966PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMONETT, Justice.

In this case we conclude that plaintiffs’ expert, a licensed consulting psychologist, is not qualified to give opinions in a medical malpractice action on the standard of care required of the defendant medical doctor. We reverse the contrary ruling of the court of appeals.

Plaintiff-respondents Judith Lundgren and her husband, Gary, sued defendant-appellant John Eustermann, M.D., claiming Dr. Eustermann was negligent in treating Judith’s mental and emotional illness with the drug Thorazine. Plaintiffs included in their complaint a separate count for punitive damages. Dr.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sinz v. OwensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Cornfeldt v. TongenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  3. Eisert v. Greenberg Roofing & Sheet Metal Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  4. Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. ChattertonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  5. Pearce v. LindeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  2. Duran v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2008
  3. Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & HannanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  4. Becker v. Mayo FoundationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  5. Bell v. HartSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API