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.
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. Pumphrey
Citations: 256 Ark. 818; 510 S.W.2d 570; 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1544Docket: 74-51
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 24, 1974; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Appellant's automobile liability insurance policy included uninsured motorist coverage. Appellee sustained injuries from a collision with an uninsured driver and was awarded damages by a jury. The sole issue on appeal is the trial court's decision to allow the treating physician to testify that nothing in a written report from a specialist contradicted his own testimony about appellee’s injuries. The treating physician had referred appellee to a specialist, who provided a written report. The trial court correctly barred the treating physician from testifying about the contents of the specialist’s report, as the specialist was not present for cross-examination, referencing New Empire Ins. Co. v. Taylor. However, the treating physician was allowed to state that the specialist's report was not inconsistent with his own findings, which the appellant contended was a way to circumvent the hearsay rule and deny the right to cross-examine the absent specialist. The testimony allowed resulted in a potential bolstering of the treating physician's opinion, which could mislead the jury. The court emphasized that appellee could have taken the specialist’s deposition or had him testify in court. The appellate court determined that the procedure used was prejudicial and impermissible. Furthermore, the court rejected appellee's argument that the specialist's written report fell under the business record statute, clarifying that the statute does not cover such communications. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case.