Legal Opinion

Barriocanal v. Gibbs

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided September 9, 1997No. 334, 1996PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VEASEY, Chief Justice:

In this appeal of a judgment for the defendant doctor in a medical malpractice case, we consider the requirements for the admissibility of testimony under Delaware’s informed consent statute, 18 Del.C. § 6852. The statute defines the conditions under which an injured party may recover damages from a health care provider based upon lack of informed consent. We conclude that the Superior Court improperly excluded plaintiffs’ proffered testimony that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care for informed consent. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment below…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. State v. CephasSupreme Court of Delaware · 1994
  3. Strauss v. BiggsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1987
  4. DeAngelis v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1993
  5. Loftus v. HaydenSupreme Court of Delaware · 1978

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Powell v. Department of Services for Children, Youth & Their FamiliesSupreme Court of Delaware · 2008
  2. Seward v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1999
  3. Green v. WeinerSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
  4. Wilmington Country Club v. CoweeSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
  5. Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005

24 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