Nestico v. Weyman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the statute would unfairly impose a form of strict liability upon any physician who agreed to treat or diagnose a patient with an unknown ailment or condition. If, for example, a patient seeking treatment for what appeared to be a common cold was actually suffering from a rare tropical disease, the internist who treated him would unwittingly expose himself to post hoc criticism and evaluation under the standard of care for doctors specializing in tropical diseases.... The obvious problem with the foregoing interpretation of the statute is that it would discourage medical practitioners from doing what they do best-that is, gathering information about their patients' unsolved medical problems and finding solutions for those problems by applying professional skill and judgment to what they learn. It is highly unlikely that the legislature intended to create such a strong disincentive for doctors to accept challenging cases. In fact, an alternative reading of the statute would avoid creating this disincentive while protecting patients from risky dabbling by physicians in specialties not their own.... So understood, the statute would subject a physician to evaluation under the standard of care for a different medical specialist only if he undertook to treat or diagnose a patient after he learned or should have learned that the patient was suffering from a condition that was not within his own medical specialty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 Conn. App. 445 - Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc.

2. “[t]he exception provision of § 52-184c does not apply unless it is alleged that the defendant physician actually undertook the diagnosis and treatment of a condition not within his specialty such that his conduct should be judged against the standards of care applicable to that specialty”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 Conn. App. 445 - Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc.

3. “(c) The failure to obtain and file the written opinion required by subsection (a) of this section shall be grounds for the dismissal of the action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 Conn. App. 445 - Labissoniere v. Gaylord Hospital, Inc.