Wilschinsky Ex Rel. Wilschinsky v. Medina’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Cummings v. X-Ray Associates of New Mexico, P. C. (1996), Lovelace Medical Center v. Mendez Ex Rel. Mendez (1991)
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 70 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · 117 Ill. 2d 507 - Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center · Durflinger v. Artiles · Schear v. Board of County Commissioners · Town of Scituate v. O'ROURKE
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The duty is not to the entire public for any injuries suffered for which an argument of causation can be made. The duty specifically extends to persons injured by patients driving automobiles from a doctor’s office when the patient has just been injected with drags known to affect judgment and driving ability.” 108 N.M. at 515 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“any cause of action arising in this state against a health care provider for medical treatment, lack of medical treatment or other claimed departure from accepted standards of health care which proximately results in injury to the patient.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While courts normally are bound to follow legislative definitions, they are not bound when a definition would result in an unreasonable classification. Here, an unreasonable classification would result, as only patients with direct injuries from acts of malpractice would be denied full recovery under the Act.... A major purpose of the Medical Malpractice Act was to meet a perceived insurance crisis and to regulate the tort liability of medical professionals for acts of medical malpractice. When we find, as we do here, a clash between the intent of the legislature and its own definitional section, we seek to harmonize the two.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hutchinson v. Patel
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.