Weil v. Seltzer
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
873 F.2d 1453 (1989)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Martin Weil, 54, died unexpectedly. For 20 years, Weil’s doctor, Dr. Seltzer (defendant), had prescribed him steroids, while telling Weil that the medicine was antihistamines. Weil’s autopsy was consistent with long-term steroid use, and it was determined that Weil’s death was a result of illnesses caused by steroid use. Weil’s estate (plaintiff) brought suit against Seltzer and during discovery it was determined that Seltzer continually prescribed steroids to a number of his patients while telling them that it was antihistamines. The district court admitted, over Seltzer’s objection, testimony of five former patients of Seltzer under Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The patients testified that Seltzer had prescribed them steroids while telling them that it was antihistamines. The district court ruled that Seltzer’s prescription of steroids in this manner was a habit and thus the testimony was admissible. The district court ruled in favor of Weil’s estate. Seltzer appealed on the grounds that the testimony was improperly admitted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gibson, S.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
