recognizing "the well-settled proposition that a physician who has examined an injured party may describe what he has seen and give his expert inferences therefrom”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing "the well-settled proposition that a physician who has examined an injured party may describe what he has seen and give his expert inferences therefrom”
- finding objection to doctor’s testimony as to causation without merit because “a physician who has examined an injured party may describe what he has seen and give his expert inferences therefrom”
- finding objections to a treating physician’s testimony as to causation without merit because “a physician who has examined an injured party may describe what he has seen and give his expert inferences therefrom”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en bane, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Bane is denied.