Peter H. Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff employee must establish that he or she could perform the essential functions of his or her job with or without reasonable accommodation
• holding that plaintiff's testimony regarding a doctor's statement to establish his ability to perform job functions was inadmissible
• holding that “Rule 803(4) does not purport to except, nor can it reasonably be interpreted as excepting, statements by the person providing the medical attention to the patient”
• holding that statements made by a doctor to a patient are not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) because the rule does not except statements by the person providing medical care
• noting that Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) “excepts statements made by a person seeking medical attention to the person providing that attention. Rule 803(4
• holding that statements made by a doctor to a patient are not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) because the rule does not except statements by the person Nos. 02-6440/6517 Field, et al. v. Trigg County Hospital, et al. Page 6 providing medical care

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).