Mauro v. Tracy
| Decision Date | 08 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20113,20113 |
| Parties | Roger MAURO, Plaintiff in Error, v. Dorothy Jeanne TRACY, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Maiolo, deceased, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert E. McLean, Marjorie Worland McLean; Joseph P. Lewis, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Yegge, Hall & Shulenburg, Raymond J. Connell, Denver, for defendant in error.
We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where plaintiff in error's intestate was plaintiff and defendant in error was defendant.
The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff in an automobile accident. Defendant offered no defense on the issue of liability and the case was submitted to the jury for determination of the amount to which plaintiff was entitled to recover. The verdict of the jury assessed the damages at $1,500.00 and judgment entered upon the verdict. Plaintiff being dissatisfied with the amount of the judgment seeks to have the verdict and judgment set aside on the sole ground that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of two doctors who were employed by him for treatment following the accident in which his asserted injuries were sustained.
Plaintiff testified that immediately after the accident he experienced pain in his neck and back; that on the following day he went to see Dr. Goebel who was not in his office, consequently he was examined and treated by Dr. Koller who was associated in the practice of medicine with Dr. Goebel. He further testified that for a period of six months thereafter Dr. Goebel treated him for the injuries received in the accident. He stated that X-rays were taken; drugs were prescribed to relieve pain, and that pursuant to these doctors' instructions he remained at home in bed for two weeks following the accident. He stated that for the professional services of doctors Koller and Goebel, made necessary by the accident, he paid the sum of $78.00, and that he lost two and one-half months work because of the injuries sustained by him.
Following the testimony of the plaintiff, defendant called Doctors Koller and Goebel, each of whom gave testimony seriously impeaching the evidence offered by plaintiff as to the extent of his injuries, the treatments prescribed in connection therewith, and the amount of their charge for professional services. Dr. Goebel's testimony disputed plaintiff's statement that several visits subsequent to the date of the accident were for treatment of injuries suffered therefrom. He stated that these subsequent consultations and treatments were for other causes. Plaintiff objected to the admission of this testimony on the ground that its reception violated C.R.S. '53, 153-1-7, which provides in pertinent part that a person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases:
'(4) A physician or surgeon duly authorized to practice his profession under the laws of this state, or any other state, shall not be examined without the consent of his patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient; * * *'
It will be noted that plaintiff first opened the door for the admission of this testimony by his own statements of the details of the treatment given by these doctors and the charges made therefor. As to the matters testified to by plaintiff the protection of the statute was waived.
In Hill v. Hill, 106 Colo. 492, 107 P.2d 597, the question arose as to the admissibility of letters written by a client to her attorney. The objection was that the offered letters were privileged communications. From the opinion in that case we quote the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanari v. People
...Int'l, 897 F.2d 1255, 1265 (3d Cir.1990); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 727 F.2d 1352, 1356 (4th Cir.1984); see Mauro v. Tracy, 152 Colo. 106, 380 P.2d 570 (1963). In this case, the defendant voluntarily endorsed Dr. Plazak as a witness, did not object to the prosecution's interview of the ......
-
People v. Deadmond, 82SA367
...the details of the service and treatment rendered to him by a physician may waive the physician-patient privilege. Mauro v. Tracy, 152 Colo. 106, 380 P.2d 570 (1963); Kelley v. Holmes, 28 Colo.App. 79, 470 P.2d 590 (1970). Cf. Bond v. District Court, 682 P.2d 33 (Colo. 1984) (court held tha......
-
Succession of Smith v. Kavanaugh, Pierson & Talley
...230 Or. 136, 141-42, 368 P.2d 81, 83-84 (1962), cert denied, 370 U.S. 957, 82 S.Ct. 1610, 8 L.Ed. 823 (1962); Mauro v. Tracy, 152 Colo. 106, 108, 380 P.2d 570, 571 (1963); 8 Wigmore, supra, § 2327 (4) & (5), at 638; McCormick, supra, § 93, at 224-25. The introduction into evidence of docume......
-
Clark v. District Court, Second Judicial Dist., City and County of Denver
...has expressly or impliedly forsaken his claim of confidentiality with respect to the information in question. 5 Cf. Mauro v. Tracy, 152 Colo. 106, 380 P.2d 570 (1963) (plaintiff's trial testimony concerning the nature, extent and cost of medical treatment received by him as a result of an a......
-
Attorney-client Privilege-the Colorado Law
...Franco v. District Court,-----Colo._____, 641 P.2d 922, 931 (1982). 41. See, Annot., 51 A.L.R.2d 521 (1957). 42. Compare Mauro v. Tracy, 152 Colo. 106, 380 P.2d 570 (1963); Sholine, supra, note 26 (when client testifies to statements or admissions made to his attorney, there is no longer an......
-
Consent to Treatment and Access to Minors' Medical Records
...33. The precise scope of privilege is not addressed here. See, Clark v. District Court, 668 P.2d 3 (Colo. 1983). 34. Mauro v. Tracy, 152 Colo. 106, 380 P.2d 570 (1963); Kelley v. Holmes, 28 Colo.App. 79, 470 P.2d 590 (1970). 35. CRS § 13-90-107(1)(d)(I) and (II). 36. So as to provide the op......
-
Professional Conduct and Legal Ethics
...See Losavio v. Dist. Court, 533 P2d 32, 34 (Colo. 1975) (citations omitted). [52] CRS§13-90-107(1)(b). [53] See, e.g., Mauro v. Tracy, 380 P2d 570, 571-72 (Colo. 1963), cited with approval in People v. Silvola, 547 P2d 1283, 1288 (Colo. 1976). [54] Colo. RPC 1.6(b) lists eight circumstances......
-
Attorney-client Privilege and Duty of Confidentiality: Distinction and Application
...455 (Colo. 1954); People v. Mullins, 532 P.2d 736, 738 (Colo. 1975). 36. Fearnley v. Fearnley, 98 P. 819 (Colo. 1908); Mauro v. Tracy, 380 P.2d 570 (Colo. 1963); Hawkyard v. People, P.2d 178 (Colo. 1946). 37. Quinn v. Ingham (In re Gibco, Inc.), 185 F.R.D. 296, 300 (D.Colo. 1997). 38. Id.; ......