The trial court did permit the plaintiff to cross examine dr brah as to his records the hospital records and the contents of the letter exclusive of the last paragraph for the purpose of establishing the medical history known to or available to dr brah at the time of the may 1959 surgery but not for the purpose of establishing . See shurpit v brah 1966 30 wis2d 388 395 141 nw2d 266 where this court held that because the specific acts of negligence alleged by the plaintiff all go to the care and treatment after may 11 1959 the scope of the pleadings limits the issue of negligence to acts of the defendant on and after may 11 1959. Witnesses who are also named parties to an action are now referred to as shurpit witnesses based on a 1966 case shurpit v brah 30 wis 2d 388 under the carney hayes holding a shurpit witness is required to answer. Third medical witnesses who have been accused of malpractice negligence causing injury who may be party defendants 36 may be compelled to testify to the proper treatment and questions relating to cause see 39 quoting shurpit v brah 30 wis 2d 388 141 nw2d 266 1966. Opinion for bailey v sturm 207 nw2d 653 59 wis 2d 87 brought to you by free law project a non profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information
How it works:
1. Register a Free 1 month Trial Account.
2. Download as many books as you like ( Personal use )
3. No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
4. Join Over 100.000 Happy Readers.
5. That's it. What you waiting for? Sign Up and Get Your Books.