The state Supreme Court has ruled that there’s no cause for a new trial in a medical malpractice case where a doctor’s pretrial testimony, about whether he relied on a medical journal’s article to prescribe medication that caused adverse effects, differed materially from what he subsequently said on the witness stand.

In T.L. v. Goldberg, the unanimous court on Monday ruled that defense counsel’s failure to disclose that the defendant doctor’s trial testimony differed from his interrogatory answers and deposition testimony, without objection from plaintiff’s counsel, didn’t amount to plain error.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]