Legal Opinion
KAIRON v. Burnham
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 6, 2010No. AC 30583PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERS, J.
Because the requirements for proper medical diagnosis and treatment ordinarily are not within the common knowledge of laypersons, a former patient who wishes to pursue a medical malpractice action generally must present expert testimony to the trier of fact. Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 789, 813, 945 A.2d 955 (2008). To be admissible, such testimony must comply with the requirements for reliability and relevance established in State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058, 118 S. Ct. 1384, 140 L. Ed. 2d…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- Connecticut v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- State v. St. JohnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Anderson v. GORDON, MUIR AND FOLEY, LLPConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. Richard S.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- State v. FisherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2022
- State v. WatersConnecticut Appellate Court · 2022
- KAIRON v. BurnhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Kairon v. BurnhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010