Michael J. Bertanzetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation

Third Circuit

Michael J. Bertanzetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation

278 F.2d 690, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4544

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 17, 1960

Docket13171

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 F.2d 690 (Michael J. Bertanzetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael J. Bertanzetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation, 278 F.2d 690, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4544 (3d Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the plaintiff in this case has recovered a judgment in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, he appeals alleging error by the trial court in the rejection of two hospital reports. We do not deem it necessary in this case to go into a discussion of admissibility of hospital reports in evidence. That has been done by this Court before and doubtless will be up again. The rejection of one of the reports by the trial judge was because the physician who examined the plaintiff was a witness at the trial and had been examined and cross-examined by counsel for the respective parties. The report, the trial judge thought, could add nothing to what had already been brought out by the physician’s testimony.

The second report had to do with outpatient treatment of the plaintiff at a hospital long after the surgeon who had treated him at the time of the accident had ceased to have anything to do with the plaintiff’s case. The report was, therefore, irrelevant in the view of the trial judge.

We see no basis for overruling the exercise of discretion made by the trial court in this case. The judgment will be affirmed.

The motion by the appellant to strike certain portions of the appellee’s brief is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although the plaintiff in this case has recovered a judgment in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, he appeals alleging error by the trial court in the rejection of two hospital reports. We do not deem it necessary in this case to go into a discussion of admissibility of hospital reports in evidence. That has been done by this Court before and doubtless will be up again. The rejection of one of the reports by the trial judge was because the physician who examined the plaintiff was a witness at the trial and had been examined and cross-examined by counsel for the respective parties. The report, the trial judge thought, could add nothing to what had already been brought out by the physician’s testimony.

The second report had to do with outpatient treatment of the plaintiff at a hospital long after the surgeon who had treated him at the time of the accident had ceased to have anything to do with the plaintiff’s case. The report was, therefore, irrelevant in the view of the trial judge.

We see no basis for overruling the exercise of discretion made by the trial court in this case. The judgment will be affirmed.

The motion by the appellant to strike certain portions of the appellee’s brief is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F.2d 690, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-j-bertanzetti-v-pennsylvania-railroad-company-a-corporation-ca3-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack