Opinion ID: 1844909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the court erred in granting defendant instruction d-3

Text: Instruction D-3 reads: The court instructs the jury that under the law the Defendants cannot introduce as a witness any doctor to testify to anything learned by him about the Plaintiff's physical condition while the relation of physician and patient existed between him and the Plaintiff, but the failure of the Plaintiff to call as a witness one of his physicians would justify you in inferring that his testimony would have been unfavorable to the Plaintiff. In cases involving personal injuries where a plaintiff has, during pretrial discovery, expressly refused to waive the medical privilege as provided for under Mississippi Code Annotated section 13-1-21 (Supp. 1983), it shall not be necessary for the defendant to subpoena such physician or physicians for trial in order to request an instruction stating that the treating physicians not called as witnesses by the plaintiff would justify an inference that their testimony would have been unfavorable. Where, however, the plaintiff expressly makes known to the defendant that the physician-patient privilege is being waived, the defendant may not claim the benefit of said instruction. [1] The record before us does not disclose that the privilege was waived prior to trial or during trial, as alleged by appellant, therefore the appellee was entitled to Instruction D-3. It would be vain and unnecessarily burdensome, as noted by the trial judge, to require a party to subpoena physicians to court when the plaintiff has already invoked the physician-patient privilege. The question of whether a physician will be permitted to testify should be decided in advance of trial so that the wasting of a physician's time as well as additional expense will not be incurred.