In the recent Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court abandoned the protection previously afforded to communications between counsel and testifying experts. This article will discuss the decision and the court’s rationale, how it compares with interpretations of discovery rules in other states, and the recent amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26, as well as the implications for legal practice in Pennsylvania.
The facts and procedural background of the case are straightforward. Barrick suffered injuries allegedly due to the collapse of a chair in the Holy Spirit Hospital’s cafeteria. He consulted a Dr. Green for medical care. Following commencement of a lawsuit, Dr. Green was designated as plaintiff’s expert in the case, and counsel for the hospital served a subpoena on Dr. Green to obtain his medical file on the plaintiff. Dr. Green’s office provided plaintiff’s medical records only.
This content has been archived.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]
