Huie v. Newcomb Hospital
| Decision Date | 07 December 1970 |
| Citation | 271 A.2d 607,112 N.J.Super. 429 |
| Parties | Annamarie HUIE et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. NEWCOMB HOSPITAL et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
William G. Bischoff, Camden, for appellant Miles E. Drake (Taylor, Bischoff, Williams & Martin, Camden, attorneys).
Marvin D. Perskie, Wildwood, for respondents (Perski & Perskie, Wildwood, attorneys).
Before Judges SULLIVAN, COLLESTER and LABRECQUE.
Pursuant to leave granted, defendant Dr. Miles E. Drake appeals from an order requiring him to submit for examination by plaintiffs' attorney an article on retrolental fibroplasia previously prepared for publication by him.
The infant plaintiff, Annamarie Huie, was prematurely born on February 4, 1965. On the day after her birth she was transferred from the hospital in which she had been born to the Newcomb Hospital, Vineland, where she came under the care of Dr. Drake, a pediatric specialist. It is contended, among other things, that by reason of the negligent administration of oxygen Annamarie has been permanently blinded. The present suit seeks to recover for her injury and disability as well as her parents' expenses and loss of services.
During the course of extensive discovery Dr. Drake's deposition was taken. When questioned as to the medical treatises in the field of retrolental fibroplasia which he recognized as authoritative, he replied, 'There are no such things.' He further testified:
Q Doctor, are you familiar with the work on Premature Babies, Nursing Care and Management, by Geddes?
A I at least know of the existence of the book.
Q It is an authoritative work in the field as of '66?
A Sorry, Mr. Perskie, I told you in the beginning that as a practicing pediatrician I cannot accept any textbook as an authority.
He was then asked:
Q Now, Doctor, have you ever prepared any papers or articles on retrolental fibroplasia?
A Yes, I have prepared a paper.
A Four years ago.
Q This was after this case or before this case?
A Well, I was in the process then of reviewing my prematuries.
Q Did you in the course of preparing this paper then--
A I was in the process of preparing a review of my premature infants. I was preparing it for the state medical journal.
Q Was it ever published?
A No. I have not sent it in. It was in the process of being prepared to send it in.
Q What occasioned your doing this?
A You mean changing the paper?
Q No. How did you come about to prepare it? Why?
A Because I had approximately 14 or 15 years of premature care in two community hospitals, and there isn't a great deal of literature in hospitals. I felt this would be advisable to do.
Thereafter plaintiffs applied to the court for an order directing that the article in question be produced for inspection by plaintiffs' attorney. The motion was granted.
We are in general accord with the reasoning expressed in the oral opinion of Judge Repetto granting the motion. Discovery rules are to be liberally interpreted. Rogotzki v. Schept, 91 N.J.Super. 135, 146--147, 219 A.2d 426 (App.Div.1966). The search for truth and justice is paramount. Myers v. St. Francis Hospital, 91 N.J.Super. 377, 385, 220 A.2d 693 (App.Div.1966). The scope of discovery practice is set forth in R. 4:10--2, formerly R.R. 4:16--2, which permits inquiry as to any matter, not privileged, which is Relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. See Strecker v. Devine, 11 N.J.Super. 272, 78 A.2d 320 (Law Div. 1951). R. 4:18--1 permits discovery and inspection of books, papers, etc., not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within the scope of the examination permitted by R. 4:10--2. It is not ground for the exclusion of testimony that it will be inadmissible at the trial, if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Greenberg v. Stanley, 30 N.J. 485,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arena v. Saphier
...the backdrop of our liberal discovery rules under which the "search for truth and justice is paramount." Huie v. Newcomb Hospital, 112 N.J.Super. 429, 432, 271 A.2d 607 (App.Div.1970). See also Jenkins v. Rainner, 69 N.J. 50, 56-57, 350 A.2d 473 (1976); Lang v. Morgan's Home Equipment Corp.......
-
Irval Realty, Inc. v. Board of Public Utility Com'rs
...their litigation with the gas company. Pretrial discovery for such purposes is permitted. R. 4:10--2. See Huie v. Newcomb Hospital, 112 N.J.Super. 429, 432, 271 A.2d 607 (App.Div.1970). We hold the view that the policy of confidentiality of such records adopted by the Board must yield to th......
-
Blumberg v. Dornbusch
...basic protection provided for all parties is preserved. 1 Rules of discovery are to be liberally construed. Huie v. Newcomb Hospital, 112 N.J.Super. 429, 271 A.2d 607 (App.Div.1970). The broadest possible latitude should be accorded them. Myers v. St. Francis Hospital, 91 N.J.Super. 377, 38......
-
Korostynski v. State, Div. of Gaming Enforcement
...lead to the discovery of relevant evidence concerning the respective positions of both plaintiff and defendant. Huie v. Newcomb Hospital, 112 N.J.Super. 429, 432 (App.Div.1970); Rogotzki v. Schept, 91 N.J.Super. 135, 146 (App.Div.1966); Van Langen v. Chadwick, 173 N.J.Super. 517, 524-525 (L......