394 Pa. Super. 327 - Smith v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Pennsylvania, our cases have heretofore ruled that an expert may not state a conclusion which is based on evidence not in the record.,.. However, several jurisdictions influenced by the teaching of highly regarded legal commentators have recognized an exception to this rule and have permitted medical witnesses to express opinion testimony on medical matters based, in part, upon reports of others which are not in evidence, but which the expert customarily relies upon in the practice of his profession____ As Professor Wigmore explains, “where the information is that of an attending nurse or physician having personal observations and an interest in learning and describing accurately, there seems to be every reason for admitting testimony based in part on this.” 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 688(4) (Chadbourn Revision). It appears to us that the foregoing limited exception is wise and salutary, hence we adopt it as the law in Pennsylvania. (Citations omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 405 Pa. Super. 392 - Cohen v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

2. “[W]e are satisfied that [the doctor] testified to his own observations, opinions, and conclusions based only in part on his review of the records of prior treating physicians. Moreover, he did not merely quote from or summarize the opinions of others, but used records of [the plaintiff’s] prior treatment in his own examination, diagnosis, and treatment..... [The doctor] testified, and it is not seriously disputed, that the records he relied upon were the kind that others in his profession would customarily review in connection with the examination of a patient. Moreover, he personally examined and ordered tests on [the plaintiff]; in large part his testimony was based on personal observation. There was no error in admitting his testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 415 Pa. Super. 41 - Primavera v. Celotex Corp.