Malone v. Indust. Comm.

OPINION

By MACK, J.

Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is grounded upon alleged error of the court in permitting the introduction by defendant of the testimony of Dr. H. H. Schulze over the objection of plaintiff that said evidence should have been excluded as privileged under the provisions of §11494 GC. We thoroughly agree with the argument that the introduction of such evidence, if competent, was so prejudicial to plaintiff as to require a new trial.

Dr. Schulze was a physician employed and paid by Malone’s employer, The Williamson Heater Company. He, examined and treated plaintiff’s deceased…