Although plaintiff had complied with 22 NYCRR 202.17 by providing authorizations as well as all the records and reports of the two physicians, plaintiff did not serve a CPLR 3101 (d) response as to either doctor. Defendants, although conceding that the doctors could testify regarding their examinations and treatment of plaintiff, took the position that they were precluded from offering their expert opinions on the issue of proximate cause. The IAS Court agreed. Moreover,...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.