Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So. 2d 1228.

377 citing documents.

Orea v. Brannan 715 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963 *111 (La.10/17/94), .
Phillip v. University Medical Center 714 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
See Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-924, 94-963, 94-992 (La.10/17/94); ; Hastings v. Baton Rouge Gen.
Hebert v. LaRocca 704 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94); .
Lugenbuhl v. Dowling 701 So. 2d 447 La. 1997
Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94); ; La.Rev.Stat.
Webb v. TULANE MEDICAL CENTER HOSP. 700 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
See Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 0963, 0992 (La.10/17/94), .
Taplin v. Lupin 700 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
The issue is whether, in this medical malpractice case, even though he is unable to produce an expert witness to testify as to the applicable standard of care, its breach and causation.
Alex v. Dr. X 692 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Instead, plaintiffs rely on Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94); , for the proposition that when a physician commits an obviously careless act, a lay person may be able to infer negligence from the act itself.
Jones v. Boustany 692 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-924, 94-963, 94-992 (La.10/17/94); ; La.R.S.
Bradford v. O'NEILL 688 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924 (La.10/17/94), .
Hebert v. Podiatry Ins. Co. of America 688 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
In Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-924, 94-963, 94-992 (La.10/17/94); , the supreme court held that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice claim need not always present expert testimony to establish the standard of care.
Guillory v. Dr. X 679 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
10/17/94); , the supreme court recognized that expert testimony as to standard of care, breach, and causation is not always necessary in a medical malpractice case, if a lay jury can infer negligence from the facts.
Smith v. State Dept. of Health & Hosp. 676 So. 2d 543 La. 1996
10/17/94), ; Hastings, 498 So.2d at 720 .
Lugenbuhl v. Dowling 676 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Torbert v. Licciardi 673 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Stevens v. Bernard 670 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Merritt v. Karcioglu 668 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
states that expert testimony is not required when negligence is obvious to a lay person, i.e. a sponge left in the body, a patient who bled to death.
Broussard v. Maki 664 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Farmer v. Reyes 665 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
10/17/94), , in support of their position.
Ragas v. Dewey 663 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
10/17/94), : We hold that expert testimony is not always necessary in order for a plaintiff to meet his burden of proof in establishing a medical malpractice claim.
Russo v. Bratton 657 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Leyva v. Iberia General Hospital & Medical Center 660 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Pratt v. Williams 658 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
1994), , rehearing denied, was rendered.
Rowsey v. Jones 655 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
McCoy v. Calamia 653 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Jeans v. Caraway 649 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Beis v. Bowers 649 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Pfiffner v. Correa, Nos. 94-C-0924, 94-C-0963, and 94-C-0992 (La., October 17, 1994), .
Todd v. Sauls 647 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
10/17/94), , the court stated on page 2: "In cases where a patient has died, the plaintiff need not demonstrate `that the patient would have survived if properly treated.'