the causal connection between the breach and the plaintiffs’ injuries. The plaintiffs argue that expert testimony as to the standard of care is not required because the Patients’ Bill of Rights, RSA 151:21, supplies that standard. Specifically, they argue that the applicable standard is articulated in RSA 151:21, VIII, which prevents medical care providers from involuntarily secluding their patients, and RSA 151:21, XII, which requires that providers allow patients to freely communicate with family members. However, RSA 507-E :2 explicitly states that plaintiffs “must include expert testimony” to meet their burden of proof. RSA 507-E :2, I (emphasis added). Other forms of evidence as to the standard of care are therefore insufficient. See Bissett v. Renna, 142 N.H. 788, 793-94 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, RSA 151:30 (2005) provides a
holding that to bring a cause of action in federal court requires that plaintiffs establish at an irreducible minimum an injury in fact that is there must be some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider holding that a manufacturers insert in and of itself may not establish the relevant standard of care in a medical negligence action but may be considered by the fact finder along with expert testimony to define the standard of care holding that a food and drug administration publication recommending how and when various drugs should be prescribed is insufficient to establish the standard of care in an action for medical injury resulting from an alleged improper prescription holding that an experts personal preference does not establish a national standard of care