Legal Opinion

Stinchcomb v. United States

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 22, 1990No. Civ. A. No. 88-8757PublishedCited by 24 opinions

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

  1. Hardy v. RiserDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1970

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Duncan v. Upjohn Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1994
  2. Shirsat v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. Peters v. NelsonDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1994
  4. Curtis v. Express, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 1994
  5. Looney v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1992

19 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