The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Dickerson v. Fatehi
No. 961531Supreme Court of Virginia
961531 Dickerson v. Fatehi 04/18/1997 If the facts alleged and admitted by a doctor in a medical malpractice case were presented to a jury, the jurors, absent expert testimony, reasonably could determine, by c…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
961531 Dickerson v. Fatehi 04/18/1997 If the facts alleged and admitted by a doctor in a medical malpractice case were presented …
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- April 18, 1997
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
961531 Dickerson v. Fatehi 04/18/1997 If the facts alleged and admitted by a doctor in a medical malpractice case were presented to a jury, the jurors, absent expert testimony, reasonably could determine, by calling upon their common knowledge and experience, whether the doctor was negligent and whether his negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, and thus the trial court erred in ruling that expert testimony was necessary to establish the standard of care. The trial court's judgment for the defendant is reversed and the case remanded.
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
ReversedRemanded
The court's record, as written
961531 Dickerson v. Fatehi 04/18/1997 If the facts alleged and admitted by a doctor in a medical malpractice case were presented to a jury, the jurors, absent expert testimony, reasonably could determine, by calling upon their common knowledge and experience, whether the doctor was negligent and whether his negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, and thus the trial court erred in ruling that expert testimony was necessary to establish the standard of care. The trial court's judgment for the defendant is reversed and the case remanded.
Outcome words in this text: reversed, remanded.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links