Court barred attempt to use treating Drs. Reports: case on point: Carchidi v. Iavicolli, A-4986-08T3 NJ SUP (3/24/2010) -NJ.
COURT'S OPINION: The Superior Court of New Jersey. Appellate Division, affirmed the order entered by the lower court. The court held, inter alia, that since Cooper, without the plaintiff's permission or knowledge, obtained the reports of Drs. Clancy and Zimmerman, they should be barred from introducing them as evidence
LEGAL COMMENTARY: The court reasoned that Drs. Clancy and Zimmerman were not actual treating physicians and could therefore not be used by the defense to give adverse causation testimony based on knowledge and information obtained through treatment. The court further reasoned that because of their membership in the plaintiff's treatment group, it would be improper to allow the defendants to use them as experts against the plaintiff. The court found it significant that each of these treatment groups held itself out as a team. The court was also influenced by the senior status of Drs. Claney and Zimmerman, who were or had been chairs or v ice-chairs with supervisory or managerial authority over the other team members and who provided training for junior team members. The court agreed with both parties that the issue presented to the court was a novel one. Each side argued that the other wanted to have it both ways. Cooper contended that if the doctors arc deemed treating physicians, the applicable precedents in the jurisdiction allow them to give adverse causation testimony; if they are not deemed treating physicians, there is nothing to prohibit them from being used as experts. Thus Cooper argued that under one rationale or the other, their causation testimony must be allowed. Conversely, the plaintiff contended that because the doctors were not treating physicians the could not be allowed to give adverse causation testimony under precedent in the jurisdiction; and although they were not treating physicians, their membership in the plaintiff's treatment group should preclude them from serving as experts against a patient of their group to avoid unwarranted interference with the physician-patient relationship and unwarranted prejudice to the plaintiff at trial. For either reason, the plaintiff urged the banning of their testimony.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Medical Law Case on Point|
|Author:||Iavicolli, Carchidi V.|
|Publication:||Medical Law's Regan Report|
|Article Type:||Case overview|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2010|
|Previous Article:||NY: was developmental disorder fault of OB? Dr.'s motion for summary judgment denied.|
|Next Article:||Award of damages to father for emotional distress reversed.|