Cárdenas v. Muangman
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
RUIZ, Associate Judge:
Appellants (plaintiffs at trial) appeal the trial court’s grant of judgment to appellees as a matter of law in this medical malpractice case. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in determining that their expert witness lacked a sufficient basis upon which to testify about the national standard of care for a dilation and evacuation procedure. We agree with appellants on this point,1 but we reject appellant Francisco Camacho’s argument that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for loss of consortium. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions that…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Weisgram v. Marley Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Washington v. Washington Hospital CenterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Meek v. ShepardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- McMillan v. McMillanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1979
- District of Columbia v. PetersDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker ClinicDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- Washington Nationals Stadium, LLC v. Arenas, Parks & Stadium Solutions, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2018
- Price v. Stryker CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- Pauline v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Pauline v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.