Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Plaintiff underwent surgery to remove her gallbladder. She filed a malpractice action against Dr. Scheidt (D) because during surgery her bowel was perforated. This was the result of a laparoscopic procedure performed by D. She was hospitalized for 77 days most of which was in intensive care. Dr. Zucker was called as an expert witness and testified that D did not deviate from accepted standards of medical care. Counsel for P attempted to cross-examine Zucker about a book entitled Surgical Laparoscopy, which had been written and edited in part by Zucker. The chapter under question was written by Dr. Fitzgibbons. When questioned, Zucker refused to acknowledge whether the medical literature authored by Fitzgibbons was authoritative in nature. The trial court prevented counsel from cross-examining Zucker with respect to statements in his book.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.