 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DeYoe v. North Memorial Health Care8/1/2000
In a one sentence assertion in DeYoe's brief, she alleges that Dr. Cruikshank should have been allowed to testify about the standard of care for nurses and the harm caused by the Nurse Schultz's negligence. Also, DeYoe briefly asserts that the trial court erred in allowing respondents' experts, specifically Dr. Meader and Nurse Lapham, to testify about matters that were not addressed in their expert disclosures when the trial court in contrast severely limited her own experts' testimony. These assertions are not supported by any citation, legal analysis, or demonstration of prejudice.
It is this court's policy to decline to address allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation. Ganguli v. University of Minnesota, 512 N.W.2d 918, 919 n.1 (Minn. App. 1994) (citing Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519, 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (1971)) ("assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant's brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection"). It would not be appropriate for this court to make assumptions about whether a ruling prejudiced DeYoe. Therefore, because prejudicial error is not obvious to this court, we conclude that DeYoe has waived her right to appeal these issues.
Affirmed.
|