Medical Malpractice
Showing 76–90 of 136 resultsSorted by average rating
Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Medical Board Investigation
Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Medical Board Investigation
Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Evidence of Other and Subsequent Acts
Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Evidence of Other and Subsequent Acts
Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment
Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment
Defendant’s Correction Addendum to Amended Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Allowing Inspection of Front Range Orthopaedics records
Defendant’s Correction Addendum to Amended Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Allowing Inspection of Front Range Orthopaedics records
Defendant’s Amended Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Allowing Inspection of Front Range Orthopaedics Records
Defendant’s Amended Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Allowing Inspection of Front Range Orthopaedics Records
C.R.C.P. 43 Stipulated Motion Regarding Absentee Testimony
C.R.C.P. 43 Stipulated Motion Regarding Absentee Testimony
Affidavit in Support of Motion for New Trial
Affidavit in Support of Motion for New Trial
Speculation about Medical Bill Reductions, Motion in Limine
Motion in limine to preclude speculative testimony that medical bills will be reduced
Defendant C.R.M. 7 Petition for Review of Magistrate’s Order
DEFENDANT C.R.M. 7 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE’S ORDER
Defendant’s Initial Rule 26 Disclosures – Personal Injury
A party must make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. Appendix A to these disclosures identifies those individuals who may have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings.
Motion to Preclude Client from Introducing Evidence or Testimony – Plaintiff was not Informed of Her Right to Undergo Testing
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING, OR INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY, THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INFORMED OF HER RIGHT ON AUGUST 1, 2012, TO UNDERGO TESTING TO DEFINITIVELY RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF INFECTION
Response to Defendant’s Motion to Prohibit Plaintiff from Asking Any Medical Expert Whether the Conduct of Physicians, was “Foreseeable”
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT PLAINTIFF FROM ASKING ANY MEDICAL EXPERT WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF , OR OTHER UCH PHYSICIANS, WAS “FORESEEABLE
Defendant’s Motion for Leaving to Conduct Ex Parte Meetings with some of Plaintiff’s Treating Health Care Providers
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT EX PARTE MEETINGS WITH SOME OF PLAINTIFF’S TREATING HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Standard of Care Opinions by Name, M.D. Pusuant to C.R.E. 702
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE STANDARD OF CARE OPINIONS BY NAME, M.D. PURSUANT TO C.R.E. 702