PETROCELLI V. GALLISON
679 F.2d 286 (1st. Cir. 1982)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Petrocelli (P) appealed a judgment for Gallison (D) in P's wife's
medical malpractice action. P asserted that excluded evidence in a medical record was
admissible under the business records exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).
FACTS: Petrocelli (P) sued Gallison (D) for medical malpractice related to a hernia
operation. D performed the operation on P and after the operation, P suffered intense pain
in his groin area. Several months later he consulted with another physician and had a second
operation done. This effort failed as well and P underwent a third operation. During trial,
P described the pain he was in and his wife testified that when D was called D told her
there was nothing that could be done to relieve the pain as he had cut a nerve. A consulting
physician testified that the ilioinguinal nerve was injured or traumatized by the first
operation but could not say it was severed. This was gleaned only by the statements of P and
the distribution of the pain and not by any actual examination of P by D. The physician also
gleaned information from hospital and medical records. D attacked this expert testimony
pointing out that the person giving it was a thoracic surgeon and not a neurologist and that
he had not performed a hernia operation in 16 years and that he socialized with P's
attorney. D denied his conversation with P's wife and their expert, a neurologist, testified
after examining P that the sensation of the nerve appeared intact. The jury gave the verdict
to D and P appealed; during trial the court excluded evidence of nerve severance from
medical records.
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