Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Donald D. Goldberg, M.D. v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 9, 1986No. 448, Docket 85-7682Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLumbard, Circuit Judge

I agree that Goldberg’s claim for damages due to his unwillingness to perform any more myelograms was properly rejected under New York law pertaining to damages for emotional distress. I believe, however, that the district court erred in holding that Goldberg’s damages relating to time spent away from his medical practice defending lawsuits were too remote from the alleged fraud as a matter of law.

The complaint alleges that Mallinckrodt knew of the dangers associated with its product, Dimeray, and that it failed to disclose this information to physicians. Instead, Mallinckrodt allegedly…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,903 Herman L. Zeller v. Bogue Electric Manufacturing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
  2. Central Trust Co. v. GoldmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  3. Japcap Establishment, Inc. v. Trust for Cultural ResourcesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API