Legal Opinion

Prudential Insurance v. Heaton

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 25, 1935No. 137PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*456OPINION

By GUERNSEY, J.

Upon the trial of the case, as shown by the transcript of the evidence, certain evidence offered by the plaintiff, consisting of statements of physicians who had been employed by and attended Finley M. Heat-on, and the records of the hospitals where he had contracted for and received treatment, were excluatd by the court under the privileged communications rule. The testimony of the physicians excluded consisted of statements relating to their diagnosis of the case and treatment of Heaton and of statements made to them by him as to the history of his physical condition.…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Carson v. Beatley, Exrx.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1948
  2. Weis v. WeisOhio Court of Appeals · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API