King v. Flamm’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 19 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““One who holds himself out as a specialist is generally expected to possess a higher degree of skill and learning than a general practitioner. See 41 Am.Jur. Physicians and Surgeons § 90; Annotation, 59 A.L.R. 1071 . The general practitioner is not required to consult with a specialist, however, on every conceivable complication that may arise in his practice. See Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59 , 100 N.W.2d 124 . If he exercises the care and skill of other physicians similarly situated, he is not responsible for an error of judgment even though a specialist would not have made the same mistake. But there is a duty to seek consultation with, or refer the patient to, a specialist when he knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that the services of a specialist are indicated. Here, as in other cases of alleged medical malpractice, the defendant is to be judged on the basis of the standards and practices of his profession. If there is expert testimony fairly supporting the conclusion that a reasonably careful and prudent general practitioner would have sought consultation under the same or similar circumstances, the trier of fact is entitled to find that the defendant was negligent in failing to do so. See Simone v. Sabo, 37 Cal.2d 253 , 231 P.2d 19 ; Annotation, 132 A.L.R. 392 .” (Emphasis added)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chasco v. Providence Memorial Hospital · A. J. Richardson v. Holmes