Home SUSAN M. POMBO, administratrix, vs. MARR EQUIPMENT CORPORATION.

1 Mass. App. Ct. 824

May 9, 1973

This is an action of tort for conscious suffering and death. The court allowed the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and admitted facts. Prior thereto the plaintiff filed a motion to amend her writ and declaration to add, inter alia, a party defendant. The plaintiff's exception to the trial court's denial of that motion presents the sole question for decision. Nothing is presented here to take the case out of the general rule that the denial of a motion to amend is discretionary. No abuse of discretion is shown. Urban v. Central Mass. Elec. Co. 301 Mass. 519 , 524. The denial of the motion in the absence of findings, rulings or requests for rulings (as in this case) presents no question of law. Keliher v. Champion, 358 Mass. 821 .

Exceptions overruled.

Home ANN EBERSTEEN & another vs. LOUIS KASSLER.

1 Mass. App. Ct. 824

May 9, 1973

This is an action of tort for medical malpractice brought against a physician by a patient and by her husband who seeks consequential damages. The action is based upon the physician's delay in ordering X-rays of the patient's hip after a fall. The jury returned verdicts for the defendant. The plaintiffs' exceptions are directed to the propriety of the trial judge's rulings on four hypothetical questions put to the plaintiffs' medical expert on cross-examination. The expert had also been an attending physician of the patient, following the defendant's treatment of her, and had testified to the medical history of her injury which he had obtained from her. Two hypothetical questions not answered by the witness were not prejudicial to the plaintiffs, nor was the third question or the answer

Page 825

thereto. The assumptions implicit in the question and expressed in the answer were supported by the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom. Carroll v. Boston Elev. Ry. 200 Mass. 527 , 533-534. Hathaway's Administrator v. National Life Ins. Co. 48 Vt. 335, 351-352. See Clayton v. Department of Labor & Indus. 48 Wash. 2d 754, 759. Cf. State Bd. of Retirement v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd. 342 Mass. 58 , 65-66. No subsequent motion having been made to strike the answer to the fourth question, which had been admitted de bene, the answer properly remained in evidence. Wilborg v. Denzell, 359 Mass. 279 , 283. Peterson v. Gaughan, 404 F. 2d 1375, 1380 (1st Cir.).

Exceptions overruled.