From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Hutchinson v. Groskin
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
927 F.2d 722 (1991)
Facts
Bonnie Hutchinson (plaintiff) sought treatment for a mole from her primary-care physician, Dr. Stephen Groskin (defendant). Dr. Groskin took a biopsy of the mole and sent it to a pathologist. Weeks later, Hutchinson called Dr. Groskin to inquire about the results. Although Dr. Groskin did not have the pathology report, he relayed to Hutchinson that there was a 95 percent chance things looked okay based on a phone conversation he had with the pathologist. However, when Dr. Groskin received the pathology report, it indicated that Hutchinson had melanoma. Dr. Groskin failed to inform Hutchinson of the findings and when Hutchinson went to get a second opinion, she learned that the cancer had spread to her lymph nodes. Hutchinson sued Dr. Groskin for negligence. At trial, during the examination of the defense’s disclosed expert, David Bronson, defense counsel had the expert look at the opinion letters of three other doctors who were not properly disclosed as experts. Only one of the doctors had actually examined Hutchinson. Bronson stated that he agreed with the statements made in each opinion letter. The jury found in favor of Dr. Groskin. On appeal, Hutchinson argued that by allowing Bronson to summarize and state whether he agreed with the opinion letters, the trial court allowed inadmissible hearsay statements of undisclosed experts to be admitted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lumbard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
