Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gilly v. City of New York
Citations: 69 N.Y.2d 509; 516 N.Y.S.2d 166; 508 N.E.2d 901; 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16346
Court: New York Court of Appeals; April 30, 1987; New York; State Supreme Court
The court determined that the substance of a medical report prepared by Dr. John Edson, a cardiologist employed by the defendant, could be introduced by the plaintiff, Rose Gilly, in her case. Gilly sustained injuries when the defendant's ferryboat struck a seawall on November 7, 1978, and her claims for damages were centered on the resulting heart condition. The defendant's liability was established, leaving only damages and comparative fault to be assessed. Dr. Edson’s report, which indicated that Gilly suffered from permanent angina caused or accelerated by the accident, was provided to her counsel as required by court rules. Gilly subpoenaed Dr. Edson to testify about his findings, but the trial court precluded his entire testimony. After being awarded $15,000 in damages, Gilly appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Edson's testimony. The court agreed that an error occurred specifically in excluding the substance of Dr. Edson’s report. It referenced a precedent (McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear, Throat Hosp.) allowing a physician-defendant to be called as an expert witness by the plaintiff and emphasized the difference between a connected witness and an unwilling expert. The court noted that while an independent expert cannot be compelled to testify, a physician already associated with the case could be questioned about their findings. The court did not determine the extent to which Gilly could question Dr. Edson regarding the causation of her condition, as it had not been previously addressed. A physician, such as Dr. Edson, who examines a plaintiff and formulates a report should be allowed to share his findings when called as a witness by the plaintiff. This approach supports the goal of truth-seeking while addressing concerns raised in prior cases. Disinterested individuals like Dr. Edson should not fear repeated litigation involvement due to their expertise. He voluntarily engaged with the case by examining the plaintiff and reporting his findings, and he did not object to disclosing this information at trial. The physician is not forced to provide opinions but merely to relate conclusions that have already been documented and shared with both parties. Additionally, once a physician's report is written and served to the opposing party, it is no longer exclusively for the defendant's use; both sides can access this relevant evidence. While this decision generally allows such evidence, it does not remove the lower courts' discretion to prevent abuse or undue prejudice in specific cases. The Appellate Division's order is reversed, granting a new trial with costs. The Chief Judge and other judges concurred, while one judge did not participate.