Thomas v. Metz

Phyllis Thomas (plaintiff) sued Dr. Albert Metz (defendant) for malpractice, alleging he performed spinal surgery on her without medical necessity, causing new neurological symptoms. Before trial, Metz's two neurological experts reviewed his pretrial deposition defending the surgery's necessity, and at trial both testified the surgery was necessary based on their review of hospital records and depositions; Thomas's lawyer thoroughly cross-examined both experts, but the trial judge refused to require the experts to disclose all their information sources and admitted the testimony despite its partial basis in Metz's own deposition. The jury found for Metz, and Thomas appealed.