Riddle v. Dickens

• Decision Date: 07 March 1966
• Docket Number: No. 254,254
• Citation: 217 A.2d 304,241 Md. 579
• Parties: Victor Hugo RIDDLE v. Comado C. DICKENS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 579

241 Md. 579

217 A.2d 304

Victor Hugo RIDDLE v. Comado C. DICKENS.

No. 254.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 7, 1966.

Donald L. Allewalt, Baltimore (Edward D. E. Rollins, Jr., Elkton, on the brief), for appellant.

William B. Evans, Elkton (A. Parks Rasin, Jr., Chesterstown, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, HORNEY, OPPENHEIMER and McWILLIAMS, JJ., and JOHN E. RAINE, Jr., Special Judge.

JOHN E. RAINE, Jr., Special Judge.

In this suit for personal injuries and minor property damages the trial court, sitting without a jury, entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $15,065. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant thereupon appealed.

The appellant does not dispute the matter of liability but, being displeased with the amount of the judgment, contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain medical testimony and in basing the judgment on speculation and conjecture.

The appellee saw Dr. John A. Fischer two weeks after the accident, and on two subsequent occasions, and it is by no means clear that Dr. Fischer was an examining doctor and not a treating doctor. However, we shall assume that he was a physician who examined the appellee in order to testify in this case. Dr. Fischer was asked to state his opinion on the basis of his examination. Over objection, he stated that the appellee had a nerve root compression of the cervical spine as a result of a disc protrusion. Without further objection, the witness related the details of his examination and his objective findings. Without objection, he expressed the opinion that the appellee had a fifty percent permanent partial disability of his entire body.

The appellant insists that an examining doctor may not express any opinion unless it is in response to a hypothetical question. When a patient is attended by a physician for the purpose of treatment there is a strong inducement for the patient to speak truthfully. Statements made under these circumstances are deemed specially trustworthy, so an exception to the hearsay rule has been extended to treating doctors. Yellow Cab Co. v. Hicks, 224 Md. 563, 168 A.2d 501. In some cases the exception is recognized where the history is given the treating doctor by a third party. Yellow Cab Co. v. Henderson, 183 Md. 546, 39 A.2d 546, 175 A.L.R. 267. The exception to the hearsay rule is not extended to examining doctors. A physician who examines a litigant so that he may later qualify as an expert witness may not testify as to the history given him. Parker v. State, 189 Md. 244, 55 A.2d 784. In order to establish a diagnosis or prognosis an examining doctor may rely on statements, pathologically germane, given to him by the patient, but if he is to testify as to a causal relationship he must do so in response to a hypothetical question. Parker v. State, supra; Wolfinger v. Frey, 223 Md. 184, 162 A.2d 745; Wilhelm v. State Traffic Safety Comm., 230 Md. 91, 185 A.2d 715. Dr. Fischer was not asked for an opinion as to a possible traumatic origin of the appellee's existing physical condition. The witness did not attempt to relate the history given him by the appellee, nor was his opinion based on the history. The witness based his opinion solely on his own observation and objective findings. Hence there was no requirement or occasion to propound a hypothetical question. Langenfelder v. Thompson, 179 Md. 502, 20 A.2d 491, 136 A.L.R. 960.

At the...