Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire, an insurance defense attorney with the Scranton law firm of Foley, Cognetti, Comerford, Cimini & Cummins has authored the following amicus curiae substituted brief on the behalf of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute for the Re-Argument en banc in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital.
The issue presented is whether the trial court properly ruled, within its broad discretion, that repeated communications from plaintiffs' attorney to the Plaintiff's treating physician/medical expert witness for trial were discoverable by the defense where the letters and e-mails to the expert purposefully addressed how the expert should frame his opinion testimony and where the trial court found, after an in camera inspection of the documents, that such written communications by the Plaintiffs' attorney may have materially impacted the expert's formulation of his opinion.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Insurance Updates, Personal Injury Updates
Reference Info:Appellate Brief | State, 3rd Circuit, Pennsylvania | United States
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Daniel E. Cummins, FOLEY, COMERFORD & CUMMINS | Attorney Advertising