I normally propound an interrogatory question to the defendant requesting information they may have regarding my client's pre-exisitng conditions, if any, or if they contend a pre-exisiting condition was aggravated by the accident. Generally, the defendant objects, stating this is work product. I came across a Discovery opinion that states the defendant is required to answer. However, their response is limited to information provided by the plaintiff. I agree this is maybe of limited value to the plaintiff absent the defendant failing to identify the condition in their answers to interrogatories, post plaintiff's disclosure, and later being denied the opportunity to make the argument at trial. Daily Record Sperti v Muhr August 10, 1966.
Copy Right 2007 Your Maryland Lawyer and Maryland Injury Attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment