Stinchcomb v. United States
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
*30MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WALDMAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is defendant’s motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(a) to compel a physical examination of the minor plaintiff in this case.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages for minor plaintiff’s brain damage and retardation which they allege resulted from negligent neonatal care by physicians employed by the defendant. The defendant states that one of the defenses it will proffer is that the condition complained of is congenital.
The defendant is asking that the minor plaintiff, age ten and a resident of New York City, submit to a physical…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hardy v. RiserDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1970
3Cited by24 opinions
- Duncan v. Upjohn Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1994
- Shirsat v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Peters v. NelsonDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1994
- Curtis v. Express, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 1994
- Looney v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1992
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.