39 Colo. App. 355 - MacMahon v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At the outset, we note that Boryla did not request damages for the increased possibility that she might suffer a recurrence of cancer in her complaint. Instead, she sought damages for “emotional distress, including fear of an increased risk of recurrence of cancer.” (Emphasis supplied).... Boryla presented evidence that the delay in diagnosis led to the following physical effects: (1) an increase in the size of the tumor and the number of cancer cells in her body; (2) the possible metasis of existing cancer cells .... [B]y presenting evidence that her condition physically worsened as a result of the delayed diagnosis, Boryla established an attendant physical injury which permitted the jury to consider damages for the emotional distress stemming from her fear of an increased risk of cancer recurrence .... That emotional distress would be a consequence of defendant’s alleged negligence need not be supported by expert testimony, such being a matter fully within the personal knowledge or experience of the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bond v. Ivanjack

2. “there was adequate evidence that defendant’s incorrect diagnosis proximately caused plaintiff to suffer compensable emotional distress when .she learned that removal of a cancerous tumor had been- delayed for eight months_ That emotional distress would be a consequence of defendant’s alleged negligence need not be supported by expert testimony, such being a matter fully within the personal knowledge or experience of the jury. We do not consider whether mental distress occasioned by negligence states a claim in the absence of physical impact or injury. Here it was undisputed that the alleged incorrect diagnosis had a physical impact in that it permitted the further growth of-the malignant; tumor. .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boryla v. Pash