Utah Court of Appeals Supports Jury Prerogative in Medical Malpractice Case
August 29th, 2011 1:49 pm | by Kenneth Reich | in In The News
Plaintiff lost at trial when the jury found that the plaintiff had failed to provide evidence of causation between his alleged injury and damages. Plaintiff moved for a new trial asserting he had put on evidence of causation through his expert. The Utah Court of Appeals sustained Second District Court Judge Michael D. Lyon’s (no relation to plaintiff) ruling denying plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. The appellate court once again sustained a jury’s broad “latitude to weigh the credibility of witnesses” and, in particular, to not “believe an expert witness even when that expert’s opinion is unchallenged by the opinion of an opposing expert.”
- Utah Legislature May Materially Alter Medical Malpractice Claims
- Court of Appeals Is Again Looking for a New Judge—Just Beware of the Senate
- Accounting Malpractice Claims Survive Dismissal in Recent Questionable Ruling in Chaikovsa, LLC v. Ernst & Young, LLP
- Understanding the Appeal of Your Opponent’s Case Is a Key to Winning at Trial.
- Daniels v. Gamma: a Basketful of Medical Malpractice Rulings
- Utah Legislature May Materially Alter Medical Malpractice Claims
- Court of Appeals Is Again Looking for a New Judge—Just Beware of the Senate
- Accounting Malpractice Claims Survive Dismissal in Recent Questionable Ruling in Chaikovsa, LLC v. Ernst & Young, LLP
- Understanding the Appeal of Your Opponent’s Case Is a Key to Winning at Trial.
- Daniels v. Gamma: a Basketful of Medical Malpractice Rulings