Morris v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Morris v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

795 P.2d 1115, 103 Or. App. 236, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1084

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 29, 1990

Docket88-3560; CA A61997

StatusPublished

This text of 795 P.2d 1115 (Morris v. Fred Meyer, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 795 P.2d 1115, 103 Or. App. 236, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1084 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought this action for damages resulting from a fall at defendant’s store. At trial, defendant introduced medical testimony to the effect that plaintiffs symptoms were feigned. On rebuttal, plaintiff sought to introduce testimony of a psychiatrist who had examined him. The trial court excluded the psychiatrist’s testimony pursuant to ORCP 44D(2), because plaintiff had failed to respond timely to defendant’s request for production of a report “from any psychologist or psychiatrist who has seen or treated Plaintiff.” Plaintiff appeals from the judgment for defendant, entered on a jury verdict, and assigns error to the exclusion of the evidence. He presents no reason that comes close to demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion. See Barry v. Don Hall Laboratories, 56 Or App 518, 642 P2d 685 (1982).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought this action for damages resulting from a fall at defendant’s store. At trial, defendant introduced medical testimony to the effect that plaintiffs symptoms were feigned. On rebuttal, plaintiff sought to introduce testimony of a psychiatrist who had examined him. The trial court excluded the psychiatrist’s testimony pursuant to ORCP 44D(2), because plaintiff had failed to respond timely to defendant’s request for production of a report “from any psychologist or psychiatrist who has seen or treated Plaintiff.” Plaintiff appeals from the judgment for defendant, entered on a jury verdict, and assigns error to the exclusion of the evidence. He presents no reason that comes close to demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion. See Barry v. Don Hall Laboratories, 56 Or App 518, 642 P2d 685 (1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 P.2d 1115, 103 Or. App. 236, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-fred-meyer-inc-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack