Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bahura v. S.E.W. Investors

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided June 15, 2000No. 96-CV-418, 96-CV-490, 96-CV-513, 96-CV-1142 and 96-CV-1143Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSteadman, Associate Judge

As the majority points out, the plaintiffs’ case in chief relied solely upon the allegation that all the plaintiffs had suffered permanent neurological injury as a result of the defendants’ negligence. All of plaintiffs’ experts focused on that theory alone. All of the defendant’s experts understandably addressed their testimony to that theory of the plaintiffs.

Four of the plaintiffs now attempt to recover not for such actual neurological injury but rather for distinct somatization disorder allegedly caused by the defendants’ negligence. To do so, they rely on snips and pieces of testimony…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Washington v. Washington Hospital CenterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. District of Columbia v. PetersDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Messina v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Travers v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Baltimore v. B.F. Goodrich Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988

3 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