Gordon v. Pavot

D.C. Circuit

Gordon v. Pavot

117 F. App'x 131

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 2005

DocketNo. 03-7182

StatusPublished

This text of 117 F. App'x 131 (Gordon v. Pavot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gordon v. Pavot, 117 F. App'x 131 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 8, 2003, be affirmed. The district court properly granted summary judgment on appellant’s claims of medical malpractice and lack of informed consent because those claims were not supported by expert testimony, which was required to establish the elements of his case. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Woldeamanuel v. Georgetown Univ. Hasp., 703 A.2d 1243, 1244-45 (D.C.1997); Lasley v. Georgetown Univ., 688 A.2d 1381, 1384-85 (D.C.1997).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 8, 2003, be affirmed. The district court properly granted summary judgment on appellant’s claims of medical malpractice and lack of informed consent because those claims were not supported by expert testimony, which was required to establish the elements of his case. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Woldeamanuel v. Georgetown Univ. Hasp., 703 A.2d 1243, 1244-45 (D.C.1997); Lasley v. Georgetown Univ., 688 A.2d 1381, 1384-85 (D.C.1997).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F. App'x 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-pavot-cadc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack