Tavernier v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

D. Oregon

Tavernier v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

34 F.R.D. 534, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10493

CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon

DecidedDecember 16, 1963

DocketCiv. No. 61-120

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 F.R.D. 534 (Tavernier v. Weyerhaeuser Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tavernier v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 34 F.R.D. 534, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10493 (D. Or. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

KILKENNY, District Judge.

On a jury trial, a verdict wTas returned in favor of defendant. During the course of the trial, the Court rejected an offer in evidence of the hospital record of the plaintiff in a Rapid City, South Dakota, hospital. The record included, among other things, a Roentgenological Report¹ on a myelogram performed by a doctor in that city.

Plaintiff, on his motion for a new trial, argues that the Court erred in refusing to admit the record in evidence, and, in support of his position cites, among others, Medina v. Erickson, 226 F.2d 475 (9 Cir. 1955). These cases do not support the proposition that a doctor’s “impression” as distinguished from his “opinion” or “diagnosis” is admissible as part of a hospital record. An impression does not rise to the dignity of an opinion. State v. Krug, 12 Wash. 288, 41 P. 126, 130, 131. At most it is an indistinct or indefinite notation. Paramount Film Distributing Corporation v. City of Chicago (D.C.Ill.) 172 F.Supp. 69; N. L. R. B. v. Walton Manufacturing Co., 286 F.2d 16, 21 (5 Cir. 1961).

Webster, 2d Edition, New Collegiate Dictionary, defines impression as an “indistinct or indefinite notion, resemblance, belief, or opinion”.

Since the other entries were covered by testimony in open Court, the admission of such a record would be in the sound discretion of the Court. Bertanzetti v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 278 F.2d 690 (3 Cir. 1960).

The Motion for a new trial must be denied.

It is so ordered.

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

KILKENNY, District Judge.

On a jury trial, a verdict wTas returned in favor of defendant. During the course of the trial, the Court rejected an offer in evidence of the hospital record of the plaintiff in a Rapid City, South Dakota, hospital. The record included, among other things, a Roentgenological Report¹ on a myelogram performed by a doctor in that city.

Plaintiff, on his motion for a new trial, argues that the Court erred in refusing to admit the record in evidence, and, in support of his position cites, among others, Medina v. Erickson, 226 F.2d 475 (9 Cir. 1955). These cases do not support the proposition that a doctor’s “impression” as distinguished from his “opinion” or “diagnosis” is admissible as part of a hospital record. An impression does not rise to the dignity of an opinion. State v. Krug, 12 Wash. 288, 41 P. 126, 130, 131. At most it is an indistinct or indefinite notation. Paramount Film Distributing Corporation v. City of Chicago (D.C.Ill.) 172 F.Supp. 69; N. L. R. B. v. Walton Manufacturing Co., 286 F.2d 16, 21 (5 Cir. 1961).

Webster, 2d Edition, New Collegiate Dictionary, defines impression as an “indistinct or indefinite notion, resemblance, belief, or opinion”.

Since the other entries were covered by testimony in open Court, the admission of such a record would be in the sound discretion of the Court. Bertanzetti v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 278 F.2d 690 (3 Cir. 1960).

The Motion for a new trial must be denied.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F.R.D. 534, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tavernier-v-weyerhaeuser-co-ord-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack