LOUIS ARKIN vs. LEON M. GOLDENBERG, executor.
Evidence, Opinion: expert; Relevancy.
At the trial of an action of contract against an executor by a surgeon to recover for professional services rendered to the defendant's testator, it was proper to exclude, in cross-examination of a witness who had been called as an expert for the plaintiff and had testified that he had assisted the plaintiff in some operations performed upon the decedent, questions as to the amount which the witness charged for his services and whether he made his own charge on the same basis as that on which he estimated the value of the plaintiff's services.
CONTRACT. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated October 11, 1932.
On removal to the Superior Court, the action was tried before Morton, J. Material evidence is stated in the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $5,355. The defendant excepted only to the exclusion of the questions to the plaintiff's expert witness described in the opinion. They were questions asked in cross-examination. The only point argued in the defendant's brief was the propriety of the exclusion of those questions.
The case was submitted on briefs.
J. W. Fowler, for the defendant.
D. Stoneman & R. Clayton, for the plaintiff.
Page 330
BY THE COURT. This is an action of contract by a surgeon to recover for professional services rendered to the defendant's testator. There was testimony tending to show that the plaintiff rendered surgical services to the deceased consisting of four mastoid operations, six paracenteses, one hundred twenty-six office visits, and seventy-seven hospital visits; that a mastoid operation is a serious and major operation; and that paracentesis is a minor operation consisting of opening or incising the ear drum. There was testimony that the value of these services was equal to the amount of the verdict. Manifestly it was for the jury to determine on all the evidence the value of the services rendered. The questions to a witness called as an expert, who assisted the plaintiff in some of the operations, as to the amount which he charged and whether he made his own charge on the same basis as that on which he estimated the value of the plaintiff's services, were rightly excluded. What one witness charges is no standard of the fair value of the services rendered by the plaintiff.
Exceptions overruled.