Legal Opinion

Harding v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County

Decided August 17, 1987No. 2505 of 1986Published

1Opinion of the Court

TERPUTAC, J.,

Before the court is a motion to compel physical examination. The issue is whether plaintiff has the.right to insist that her chiropractor, who is her only medical expert, be permitted to attend plaintiffs physical examination to be conducted by defendant’s physician. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we hold that she has the right to have her chiropractor present during the examination.

Plaintiffs, Imelda Harding and Harry Harding, her husband, in their civil action against defendants, Sears, Roebuck and Co!, and Franklin Mall, alleged that wife-plaintiff sustained…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. HOWE v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  2. Hardy v. Commonwealth, Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Pennsylvania Blue Shield v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API