Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital

Amicus Curiae Substituted Brief Submitted by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute in Support of Position of Appellee/Defendant


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.

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

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »