Frankel v. Deane

Summary

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the plaintiff's expert testimony and granting summary judgment based on its resolution of disputed facts and credibility issues. The experts could rely on circumstantial evidence and infer breach and causation where each inference was supported by expert testimony, and the alleged failure to review treating physicians' notes affected weight rather than admissibility. The court vacated the intermediate appellate judgment and remanded for further proceedings under the current expert-testimony standard, including consideration by a different trial judge.