United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
679 F.2d 286 (1982)
After Dr. Davis Gallison (defendant) performed a hernia surgery on James Petrocelli (plaintiff), James began suffering from intense pain in his groin area, as a result of which he consulted with Dr. Swartz, who determined that the hernia had reoccurred. Dr. Swartz performed a second surgery to correct the hernia, but the pain persisted and James had to undergo a third surgery. James and his wife, Beverly Petrocelli (plaintiff), sued Gallison for malpractice alleging that Gallison had severed James’ ilioinguinal nerve. Beverly testified that Gallison told her that James was suffering from pain after the first surgery because he had severed a nerve, but Gallison testified that he had not severed a nerve and denied telling Beverly that he had severed a nerve. Additionally, conflicting expert testimony was offered by both sides regarding whether the nerve was severed, damaged or intact. The court excluded however, two statements contained in James’ medical records. The first appeared in Dr. Swartz’s report under the caption, “Indications,” and stated in reference to the first surgery performed by Gallison, “During the course of that surgical procedure, the left ilioinguinal nerve was severed.” The second excluded sentence appeared in a physician’s report in the surgical clinic after the second surgery and stated, “Hernia well healed but very worried about pain from transected ilio femoral nerve.” The jury returned a verdict for Gallison and the Petrocellis appealed, asserting that the excluded statements were admissible hearsay under the business records exception in Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 803(6).
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Campbell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 199,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.