Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schozer v. William Penn Life Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 6, 1994Published

1DissentSimons, J.

I would affirm.

In my view, the Trial Justice correctly denied admission of the doctor’s report stating that decedent’s heart was enlarged, because the X ray of the heart was not produced in court. The court’s ruling was consistent with an unbroken line of New York decisions which hold that a doctor may not express an expert opinion of what an X ray shows unless the X ray is *648before the court. We stated it most recently in Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth.:

"With respect to the claimed fracture, plaintiff’s physician testified that, based on his reading of an X ray of her lower back, she was…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hambsch v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Cassano v. HagstromNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
  3. Ebanks v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Claim of Riehl v. Town of AmherstNew York Court of Appeals · 1954

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API