 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MacDonald v. Bishop11/30/2000
as starting to affect his speech." The brother testified that while taking multi-vitamins, MacDonald told him that the sore area on his tongue became numb. He also testified that in March 1995, he was told by MacDonald that the numbness was getting worse.
The plaintiff contends that the testimony of MacDonald's son and brother was insufficient to rebut the multi-vitamin defense theory. Specifically, he argues that the son would have offered testimony that MacDonald had noticed changes in his tongue condition in the months immediately following the January 1994 office visit. Apparently, he sought to rely on the son's testimony to supplement MacDonald's own account. A fair reading of the record establishes that MacDonald's son testified that his father complained of tongue numbness in the early fall of 1994 and that it was ongoing and worsening. MacDonald's brother corroborated the complaints. According to the plaintiff, the defendant asserted, as a defense, that the multi-vitamin regime he prescribed cured MacDonald's condition before he was independently examined in March 1995. We conclude that even without the son's proposed testimony, the jury had ample evidence before it to decide whether MacDonald's symptoms resolved prior to March 1995 and, thus, could fairly determine whether multi- vitamins cured his tongue complaints. Accordingly, there is no discernible prejudice to the plaintiff's case as a result of the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
Affirmed.
BROCK, C.J., concurred; HORTON, J., retired, specially assigned under RSA 490:3, concurred.
|