Gilbert v. Klar

223 A.D. 200, 228 N.Y.S. 183, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6168
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 28, 1928·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order directing plaintiff to appear before a designated doctor, who is roentgenologist at the Millard [201] Fillmore Hospital in Buffalo, N. Y., and to permit an X-ray “ photograph ” to be taken of his right elbow. While the decisions of the State courts on the point are conflicting, we are of the opinion that the order should be affirmed. A physician or surgeon designated by the court or judge to make a physical examination of the plaintiff should be permitted, under such restrictions and directions as shall seem proper, to employ such means as are in common use in the profession. We may take judicial notice that the X-ray is in common use and that the science and art thereof have been developed to a point where, in the hands of specialists, there is little or no danger.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concur. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Crouch, Taylor and Sawyer, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gilbert v. Klar, 223 A.D. 200, 228 N.Y.S. 183, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

223 A.D. 200 (Gilbert v. Klar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mitchell v. Pure Oil Co.
20 F. Supp. 1021 (E.D. New York, 1937)
Stasko v. Smith
16 Pa. D. & C. 726 (Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas, 1932)
Heilig v. Harrisburg Railways Co.
17 Pa. D. & C. 509 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1932)