Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)

Citation: Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Parent Document: Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 1948-04-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3533510/mattfeld-v-nester/ ↗

Full Text

1,566 chars

what was the matter with deceased; that he sent her there for further diagnosis and attention; that, while he had made no clinical tests of her blood or urine or any others to determine whether she had a cancer, the facts assumed furnished an adequate basis for his opinion. In the course of his cross-examination he was asked directly in several different ways whether or not his opinion was a speculation, conjecture, or guess, but these were all ruled out upon objection. He testified that his opportunities to observe Lillian and to make various tests furnished an adequate basis for his opinion as to the cause of death. He was not asked to explain scientific or medical facts or doctrines which he applied to the assumed facts in coming to his conclusion; nor was any attempt made to show what such facts or doctrines were, much less that, if they were applied to the assumed facts, they would not show that the accidental injuries were not the cause of death. The trial court made it clear to defendant that he could pursue any inquiries concerning specific factors that ought to be considered by a medical expert in forming an opinion as to the cause of death. When defendant inquired of the doctor whether, if he wanted “to know the true answer,” he ought to take into consideration “other factors in addition to the ones that were contained in the hypothetical question,” an objection to the question was made, and the court thereupon inquired, “Why don’t you ask him about the other things,” and counsel replied, “All right. I was coming to that if I *117

Other Sections in This Document (117)

Full Text