AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MICHAEL FAZIO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

In a personal injury action that is now limited to the issue of damages, defense witness Block conducted an independent medical examination of plaintiff, and also offered expert opinion as to the medical records compiled by plaintiff's physicians. Efforts were made, at Dr. Block's deposition, to impeach him for his alleged proclivity for appearing as a defense witness in such cases. The challenged subpoena seeks Dr. Block's financial records for the previous five years, "pertaining to all money earned for testimony regarding exams, and consults."

The use of a judicial subpoena for the sole purpose of showing that an examining physician's history of financial compensation indicates a defense-oriented predisposition — in other words, for the purpose of impeaching the witness' general credibility — is improper. Such information is irrelevant and immaterial to the underlying facts at issue in the case, and the subpoena should have been quashed (Pernice v. Devora, 238 A.D.2d 558).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FAZIO v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
(May 30, 2000)