Thomas v. Metz
Wyoming Supreme Court
714 P.2d 1205 (1986)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Phyllis Thomas (plaintiff) underwent spinal surgery to correct neurological symptoms. Dr. Albert Metz (defendant) performed the surgery. Thomas later developed other neurological symptoms, which she attributed to the surgery. Thomas sued Metz for malpractice in operating on Thomas without medical necessity. Before trial, Metz's two neurological experts read Metz's pretrial deposition, in which Metz defended the surgery's necessity. At trial, both experts testified the surgery was necessary, an opinion the experts said they based on their review of hospital records and pretrial depositions. Thomas's lawyer thoroughly cross examined both experts. The jury returned its verdict for Metz. On appeal, Thomas argued that the trial judge: (1) improperly refused to require the experts to disclose the sources on which they based their opinions, and (2) improperly admitted expert testimony formed in part on statements Metz made in his deposition.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
