| MUST READS (1 summaries) | |||
| NOTEWORTHY | IF YOU MUST READ | ||
 Hospitalist’s motion to dismiss wrongful death action, bought in subsequent action where she was named in original action but never served, on statute of limitations denied as the relation back doctrine applies to consolidation of a subsequent action and she knew or should have she would have been included in the original Complaint even though she no longer worked for the hospital when the original action was commenced.Motion for summary judgment by gastroenterologists who only saw the decedent for 2-days on his initial admission, ordered and performed a computed tomography angiography (CTA) which they claimed was the only test necessary to rule out mesenteric ischemia denied where plaintiff’s experts opined they departed from accepted practice by not ordering a magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and other tests as the contrast used in a CTA can obscure the mesenteric vessels, that intestinal ischemia was withing their purview, and that further tests and the autopsy report provided significant proof of mesenteric occlusion at the time they saw decedent who died from sepsis and a gangrenous bowel. Defendants’ experts did not address whether the CTA dye could obscure the mesenteric vessels, the autopsy report, or whether intestinal ischemia was within the defendants’ purview. Picchioni v Sabur ✉ |
| NOTEWORTHY (0 summaries) | |||
| MUST READS | IF YOU MUST READ | ||
| IF YOU MUST READ (0 summaries) | |||
| MUST READS | NOTEWORTHY | ||
Bookmark the permalink.