Baker v. Guzon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Q. And that’s because you are not able to state within a reasonable degree of medical certainty the cause of death of Mr. Super, are you? A. I don’t believe that’s true. Q. What is your opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to the cause of death of Mr. Super? A. Based upon the autopsy results, which I reviewed, I believe that Mr. Super’s approximate cause of death was his liver disease; namely, cirrhosis of the liver. Q. So is it your opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, based upon all the information that you have reviewed in this case that the cause of death of Mr. Super was cirrhosis of the liver? A. And subsequent complications thereof, yes. Q. So I want to be specific and I want to make sure that I’m understanding you. Based upon all the information that you reviewed in connection with your review of this case, it is your opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the cause of death of Mr. Super was cirrhosis of the liver and com plications relating and stemming therefrom? A. That’s correct. [[Image here]] Q. You would agree with me, would you not, that the most likely cause of Mr. Super’s cirrhosis was chronic active hepatitis based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty? A. Yes. [[Image here]] Q. Okay. You mentioned specifically that the findings that relates to the liver. Did you see any evidence of macrono-dular cirrhosis on autopsy? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree with me that ma-cronodula”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Super v. White

2. “Furthermore, on cross-examination [the plaintiffs’ expert] did not vitiate his opinion by responding affirmatively to a sta tistic, namely, [the decedent’s] ‘twenty-five per cent chance of dying.’ As in Schiles , the fact that [the plaintiffs’ expert] acknowledged that statistic indicated that there was a scientific basis for his opinion and that his opinion was based on reasonable, not absolute medical certainty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davolt v. Highland

3. “[I]n wrongful death actions, plaintiffs must establish that, “but for” the actions or inaction of the defendant, the decedent would not have died. This requirement exists because the term but for refers to an absolute minimum for causation; it is merely causation in fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Super v. White