FRESHWATER V. SCHEIDT
714 N.E.2d 891 (1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal in a malpractice action over statements in learned
treatises used to impeach the testimony of an expert witness.
FACTS: Plaintiff underwent surgery to remove her gallbladder. She filed a malpractice
action against Dr. Scheidt (D) because during surgery her bowel was perforated. This was the
result of a laparoscopic procedure performed by D. She was hospitalized for 77 days most of
which was in intensive care. Dr. Zucker was called as an expert witness and testified that D
did not deviate from accepted standards of medical care. Counsel for P attempted to
cross-examine Zucker about a book entitled Surgical Laparoscopy, which had been written and
edited in part by Zucker. The chapter under question was written by Dr. Fitzgibbons. When
questioned, Zucker refused to acknowledge whether the medical literature authored by
Fitzgibbons was authoritative in nature. The trial court prevented counsel from
cross-examining Zucker with respect to statements in his book.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment