U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1960

Harry L. Abrams, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Edith Abrams, Deceased v. Doctor Everett J. Gordon

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 6, 1960 · Reed, Prettyman, Edgerton

276 F.2d 500 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Sheldon E. Bernstein, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. David A. Brody, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Harvey B. Cohen, Washington, D. C. , also entered an appearance for appellant., Mr. Justin L. Edgerton, Washington, D. C., with -whom Messrs. Charles E. Pledger, Jr., Randolph C. Richardson, and John F. Mahoney, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Francina King v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1967)
McCay Ex Rel. McCay v. Mitchell (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970)
Stottlemire v. Cawood (District Court, District of Columbia 1963)
Virgil Wiseman v. Sinclair Refining Company (2d Cir. 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff’s wife died some months after an operation the defendant surgeon performed. The plaintiff attributed her death to the operation and sued for malpractice. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.

Both negligence and causation were in issue. The court prevented the plaintiff from cross-examining expert witnesses, who had testified for the defense on causation, concerning any statements in texts which the witnesses had not relied upon or read. We think the court erred. Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U.S. 269, 70 S.Ct. 110, 94 L.Ed. 63; Dolcin Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 219 F.2d 742, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 981, 75 S.Ct. 571, 99 L.Ed. 763. “The object of using the books on cross-examination was to test the expert’s testimony by having him refer to and comment upon their contents.” 338 U.S. at page 276, 70 S.Ct. at page 114. The court’s bar was against all books, however reputable, which the expert witness had not relied upon or read. In view of this ruling it was not necessary for the appellant to show these particular books were authoritative. We cannot say the court’s error was not prejudicial.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.