From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Palmer v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 8, 1934
150 Misc. 669 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)

Summary

In Palmer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 150 Misc. 669 (270 N.Y. Supp. 10), a hospital record under section 374-a of the civil practice act was held admissible to show the date of entry and discharge and the fact that deceased was treated, but was incompetent to prove diagnosis which was privileged under section 352 of the civil practice act.

Summary of this case from Gile v. Hudnutt

Opinion

March 8, 1934.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Bronx, Second District.

Tanner, Sillcocks Friend [ Herbert F. Garrick of counsel], for the appellant.

Thomson McGinty [ John J. McGinty of counsel], for the respondent.



Defendant, prima facie, proved breach of the conditions of the policy. Plaintiff had it within her power to rebut the defendant's evidence, but did not. The evidence shows the certificate of death and the hospital certificate were furnished with the proofs of death and the statements therein were competent evidence as admissions by plaintiff. The hospital record, under section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act, was admissible to show date of entry and discharge and that the deceased was treated, but not competent to prove diagnosis which was privileged under section 352 of the Civil Practice Act.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, HAMMER, CALLAHAN and FRANKENTHALER, JJ.


Summaries of

Palmer v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 8, 1934
150 Misc. 669 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)

In Palmer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 150 Misc. 669 (270 N.Y. Supp. 10), a hospital record under section 374-a of the civil practice act was held admissible to show the date of entry and discharge and the fact that deceased was treated, but was incompetent to prove diagnosis which was privileged under section 352 of the civil practice act.

Summary of this case from Gile v. Hudnutt
Case details for

Palmer v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:KATE PALMER, Respondent, v. THE JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1934

Citations

150 Misc. 669 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
270 N.Y.S. 10

Citing Cases

Weis v. Weis

The courts in those states having physician-patient privilege statutes similar to Section 11494, General…

Wade v. Bay City

"The admissibility, however, of hospital records under this statute is limited in nature. In the Gile Case,…