From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feinberg v. Fairmont Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 1947
272 App. Div. 101 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

Summary

In Feinberg v. Fairmont Holding Corp. (272 App. Div. 101) following Kelman v. Union Ry. Co. (202 App. Div. 487) the Appellate Division in this department has held that the physician is not generally required to furnish the plaintiff with a copy of his report.

Summary of this case from Kleinot v. Steiner

Opinion

April 18, 1947.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County, BENVENGA, J.

Archie Weltman of counsel ( Thomas Bress with him on the brief; Leopold Friedman, attorney), for appellant.

J. Stanley Cohen for respondent.


Physical examinations in actions to recover damages for personal injuries are permitted by section 306 of the Civil Practice Act for the purpose of enabling defendants to ascertain the nature and extent of the injuries claimed to have been sustained and not to afford plaintiffs a means of obtaining evidence at the expense of defendants. Reports of examining physicians based upon such examinations are not made available to plaintiffs. ( Kelman v. Union Railway Co., 202 App. Div. 487.)

It is now well settled that X rays may be taken in connection with a medical examination under the foregoing section. ( McInnes v. Cannon, 225 App. Div. 852; Gimenez v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co., 236 App. Div. 804.) X-ray photographs are in a sense pictorial reports of alleged injuries in contradistinction to written reports. When they are taken in connection with a medical examination made in behalf and at the expense of a defendant in an action they are no more open to inspection by plaintiff than are the written reports of the examining physicians.

The order appealed from should, therefore, be modified by denying an inspection of the X rays taken and to be taken by defendant's physician, and as so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant.

MARTIN, P.J., GLENNON, DORE, COHN and PECK, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously modified by denying an inspection of the X rays taken and to be taken by defendant's physician, and as so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Feinberg v. Fairmont Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 1947
272 App. Div. 101 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

In Feinberg v. Fairmont Holding Corp. (272 App. Div. 101) following Kelman v. Union Ry. Co. (202 App. Div. 487) the Appellate Division in this department has held that the physician is not generally required to furnish the plaintiff with a copy of his report.

Summary of this case from Kleinot v. Steiner
Case details for

Feinberg v. Fairmont Holding Corp.

Case Details

Full title:TILLIE FEINBERG, Respondent, v. FAIRMONT HOLDING CORPORATION, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 18, 1947

Citations

272 App. Div. 101 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)
69 N.Y.S.2d 414

Citing Cases

Witenberg v. Italiana

Per Curiam. Plaintiff Felicja Romana Witenberg is alleged in the complaint to be a resident of the State of…

Viro Realty Corp. v. Belmont

This is not a case where the defendant is asked to waive the protection of the statute, but presents rather a…