Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Steinberg v. Jensen

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1995No. 92-2475Published

1ConcurrenceShirley S. Abrahamson, J.

I write separately because I agree with the basic rule established in Klieger v. Alby, 125 Wis. 2d, 468, 373 N.W.2d 57 (Ct. App. 1985), and its successor cases, although I do not agree with all of Klieger's rationale or language.1 The majority errs in overruling Klieger. Finally, I do not agree with the approach of, or result reached by, the court of appeals in the case at bar, Steinberg v. Jensen, 186 Wis. 2d 237, 519 N.W.2d 753 (Ct. App. 1994).

*476I.

I read the Klieger rule as prohibiting ex parte discussions of a substantive nature between a defense attorney and a patient's treating physician…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. BlalockCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
  2. State Ex Rel. Klieger v. AlbyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
  3. Wikrent v. Toys" R" US, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
  4. Haack v. TempleCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
  5. Steinberg v. JensenCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API