Court Opinion

ID: 9616035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:42:59.464111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:37.894583
License: Public Domain

WOOD, Judge, Court of Appeals (dissenting in part): Plaintiff’s testimony as to the hospitalization, the Dilantin and the fact that he was ■ treated by Dr. Miller is testimony as to ' acts which necessarily infer communication with the doctor concerning the physical condition for which he received the hospitalization, the medicine and the treatment. If more is needed, plaintiff provided it when he introduced the hospital bill which detailed the treatment received. The exclusion of Dr. Miller’s testimony ■was error. To say the error was harmless is to interpret an ambiguous record as to the tender in favor of exclusion of evidence. Modem authority favors the reception of evidence rather than its exclusion. State v. Schrader, 64 N.M. 100, 324 P.2d 1025. I dissent from the views which affirm the ■ exclusion of the doctor’s testimony.