Ryan v. Renny’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) If the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a specialist or subspecialist recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties [‘ABMS’] or the American Osteopathic Association [‘AOA’] and the care or treatment at issue involves that specialty or subspecialty recognized by the [ABMS] or [AOA], the person providing the testimony shall have specialized at the time of the occurrence that is the basis for the action in the same specialty or subspecialty, recognized by the [ABMS] or the [AOA], as the party against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered, and if the person against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is being offered is board certified and the care or treatment at issue involves that board specialty or sub-specialty recognized by the [ABMS] or the [AOA], the expert witness shall be: (1) a physician credentialed by a hospital to treat patients for the medical condition, or to perform the ■procedure, that is the basis for the claim or action; or (2) a specialist or subspecialist recognized by the [ABMS] or the [AOA] who is board certified in the same specialty or subspecialty rec ognized by the [ABMS] or the [AOA], and during the year immediately preceding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the claim or action, shall have devoted a majority of his professional time to either: (a) the active clinical practice of the same health care profession in which the defendant is licensed, and if the defendant is a speci”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lomando v. United States · Buck v. Henry

2. “The core purpose underlying the [AMS] is to require plaintiffs ... to make a threshold showing that their claim is meritorious, in order that meritless lawsuits readily could be identified at an early stage of litigation. Importantly, there is no legislative interest in barring meritorious claims brought in good faith. Indeed, [t]he legislative purpose was not to create a minefield of hyper-technicalities in order to doom innocent litigants possessing meritorious claims.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 162 F. Supp. 3d 423 - Szemple v. University of Medicine & Dentistry · 442 N.J. Super. 1 - Johnny Medina v. Ceasar G. Pitta, M.D.

3. “devotion of the person's practice substantially to the general area or specialty involved in the action for a period of at least five years.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 162 F. Supp. 3d 423 - Szemple v. University of Medicine & Dentistry · 438 N.J. Super. 562 - Hill International, Inc. v. Atlantic City Board Of education Cobra Construction Company, Inc. v. Atlantic City Board of Education