[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
November 2, 1935


JAMA. 1935;105(18):1460-1462. doi:10.1001/jama.1935.02760440070041

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Malpractice: Medical Books as Evidence; Expert Testimony.—  The plaintiff suffered a fracture dislocation at the left ankle joint, a so-called Pott's fracture. The physician-defendant treated the injury. His patient was dissatisfied with the result and later was treated by other physicians. She sued the physician who treated her in the first instance. From a judgment in her favor, he appealed to the Supreme Court of Iowa.The physician-defendant took exception to a ruling of the trial court that permitted the use of medical books when he was under cross-examination. He had not testified that he had examined medical books or that he relied on medical books in general or on any particular book, but on cross-examination he was asked whether he had consulted certain books and how many of those books advised a certain method of treatment. His counsel objected, but the trial court overruled the objection and required the

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview