This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Petrocelli (P) sued Gallison (D) for medical malpractice related to a hernia operation. D performed the operation on P, and after the operation, P suffered intense pain in his groin area. Several months later he consulted with another physician and had a second operation done. This effort failed as well, and P underwent a third operation. During trial, P described the pain he was in, and his wife testified that when D was called D told her there was nothing that could be done to relieve the pain as he had cut a nerve. A consulting physician testified that the ilioinguinal nerve was injured or traumatized by the first operation but could not say it was severed. This was gleaned only by the statements of P and the distribution of the pain and not by any actual examination of P by D. The physician also gleaned information from hospital and medical records. D attacked this expert testimony pointing out that the person giving it was a thoracic surgeon and not a neurologist and that he had not performed a hernia operation in 16 years and that he socialized with P's attorney. D denied his conversation with P's wife and their expert, a neurologist, testified after examining P that the sensation of the nerve appeared intact. The jury gave the verdict to D and P appealed; during trial the court excluded evidence of nerve severance from medical records.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.