Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in your office as a patient, he came in with his contact lenses in, he had a prior history of refractions that you believe indicated stability, you still would have remeasured him prior to surgery; correct? A. That's just my habit. Q. And your habits are the ones that you believe are what a prudent ophthalmologist should observe? A. As stated in the context of my deposition. Q. Do you know what the standard of care is in Arizona, Doctor? A. No. 7 . See, e.g., Vigil v. Herman, 102 Ariz. 31, 34, 424 P.2d 159, 162 (1967) (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); Stallcup v. Coscarart, 79 Ariz. 42, 49, 282 P.2d 791, 796 (1955) (same); Potter v. Wisner, 170 Ariz. 331, 339, 823 P.2d 1339, 1347 (App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Peacock v. Samaritan Health Serv., 159 Ariz. 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that appellate court could not review the sufficiency of the evidence  based on a particular legal standard because that standard was not submitted to the jury and no party objected to the charge on this ground or requested that the jury be charged using this standard (C) holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally accepted standard of care (D) recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care (E) holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider
Output (English): holding that appellate court could not review the sufficiency of the evidence  based on a particular legal standard because that standard was not submitted to the jury and no party objected to the charge on this ground or requested that the jury be charged using this standard