Jesse A. Fielden v. Csx Transportation, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no (2)(B) report required for treating physician who would give expert testimony about causation learned by providing treatment
• recognizing that “[a] treating physician . . . can be deposed or called to testify at trial without any requirement for a written report.” (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a) advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment, subdiv. (a), para. (2))
• acknowledging that the after-treatment limitation is based on a “purposive reading of Rule 26” (emphasis added)
• explaining that to do otherwise “would permit circumvention of the policies underlying the expert report requirement”
• observing that “doctors may need to determine the cause of an injury in order to treat it”
• acknowledging that the after-treatment limitation is based on a “purposive reading of Rule 26” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).