Legal Opinion
Beahm v. Shortall
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided February 7, 1977No. [No. 50, September Term, 1976.]PublishedCited by 95 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtOrth, J.
This appeal requires that we look again at the rule followed in this jurisdiction concerning the admissibility of the testimony of a physician employed to examine a person, not for the purpose of treatment, but in order to qualify as an expert witness during litigation.
I
We have made a distinction between a treating physician and a nontreating physician. Our latest word on the matter appears in Candella v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 277 Md. 120, 353 A. 2d 263 (1976), in which we summarized the law:
“We have applied in this State the universally-recognized principle that an attending physician may…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- Dorsey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
- People v. ModestoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- I. W. Berman Properties v. Porter Bros.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Fowler v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
- Wilhelm v. State of Maryland Traffic Safety CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by95 opinions
- Reed v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
- Impala Platinum Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
- Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. SeneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1982
- Muthukumarana v. Montgomery CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Harris v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.