be safely retrieved up to 23 days.” ¶25 While Horn argues that such manufacturer information may contain the standard of medical care, standing alone it does not do so. The issue is that there was no medical expert testimony stating that the manufacturer’s information was the standard of care. There was no description of a standard of care that a jury could comprehend. A doctor witness’s statement that he agreed with this information in no way helps the jury to understand it, and does not in any way establish the medical standard of care that should be followed by all hospitals for blood clot filter cases. ¶26 A manufacturer’s recommendation or package insert can be relevant evidence to be considered by the jury, but it is not a substitute for the required expert evidence that descr (<HOLDING>). ¶27 Horn attempts to downplay this
holding that package inserts and parallel physicians desk reference information may be considered by the jury along with expert testimony to determine the appropriate standard of care holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care recognizing that missouri courts have often held that regulations may establish the appropriate standard of care in a negligence case 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