Kimberly Marie Snawder v. Stuart P. Cohen, M.D.

Sixth Circuit

Kimberly Marie Snawder v. Stuart P. Cohen, M.D.

5 F.3d 1012, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 25093, 1993 WL 385137

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 1993

Docket92-6593

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F.3d 1012 (Kimberly Marie Snawder v. Stuart P. Cohen, M.D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kimberly Marie Snawder v. Stuart P. Cohen, M.D., 5 F.3d 1012, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 25093, 1993 WL 385137 (6th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

RYAN, Circuit Judge.

Kimberly Snawder alleges in this products liability action that she sustained injuries as a result of an oral poliomyelitis vaccine that she received in the early 1970s. She appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Stuart P. Cohen, M.D., and argues only that summary judgment was inappropriate because Kentucky law does not in all cases require a plaintiff to produce expert witness testimony in order to prove a lack of informed consent.

Because we agree with the lower court that, in this case, expert witness testimony was required, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for the reasons set out in its comprehensive, carefully analyzed, and well-articulated opinion. Snawder v. Cohen, 804 F.Supp. 910 (W.D.Ky.1992).

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

RYAN, Circuit Judge.

Kimberly Snawder alleges in this products liability action that she sustained injuries as a result of an oral poliomyelitis vaccine that she received in the early 1970s. She appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Stuart P. Cohen, M.D., and argues only that summary judgment was inappropriate because Kentucky law does not in all cases require a plaintiff to produce expert witness testimony in order to prove a lack of informed consent.

Because we agree with the lower court that, in this case, expert witness testimony was required, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for the reasons set out in its comprehensive, carefully analyzed, and well-articulated opinion. Snawder v. Cohen, 804 F.Supp. 910 (W.D.Ky.1992).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F.3d 1012, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 25093, 1993 WL 385137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimberly-marie-snawder-v-stuart-p-cohen-md-ca6-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack