Plaintiff lawyers frequently suspect that there has been ex parte contact between a defendant doctor in a malpractice case (or his counsel) and a subsequent treating doctor. Obviously, the value of having the favorable testimony of a subsequent treating doctor cannot be overstated. Because it is generally understood that there is to be no ex parte contact between a defendant doctor (or his counsel) and a treating physician, defense attorneys generally do not depose treating doctors, except where it is obvious from their records that they would offer opinions favorable to the defendant doctor on issues of standard of care or causation. This possible defense tactic should be addressed by plaintiff lawyers handling medical malpractice cases.
Rule 4003.6: Its Development
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.6 was approved by the state Supreme Court and took effect on July 1, 1991, and was specifically designed to codify, in the Rules of Civil Procedure, the reasonable limitations upon defense communication with a treating physician. The rule reads as follows:
This content has been archived.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
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]
