Arizona & New Mexico Railway Co. v. Clark

Background

A railroad employee sued the Arizona & New Mexico Railway after an on-the-job injury, claiming $40,000 under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The suit began in territorial court before Arizona became a State; proceedings continued in federal court, the jury returned a verdict for the employee, and the verdict was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two main questions: whether the federal court properly heard the case after statehood, and whether the trial court properly excluded testimony from two physicians who had examined the employee. The majority held that the defendant waived jurisdictional objections by answering on the merits in federal court. On the medical evidence, the Court read Arizona law to protect both what a patient tells a doctor and what a doctor learns by personal examination, and concluded the statute's waiver clause applied only when the patient voluntarily testifies about communications to the doctor. Because the plaintiff did not expressly testify about those communications, the trial court properly excluded the doctors' testimony.

Real world impact

The decision lets state law bar physician testimony about bedside examinations unless the patient expressly waives that protection by testifying about what was told to the doctor. That limits a defendant’s ability to use treating physicians to contradict an injured worker’s account. It also confirms that litigants who proceed on the merits in federal court can lose technical jurisdictional objections.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Hughes and Day dissented, arguing the patient’s testimony about his condition and his nurse’s testimony should have waived the privilege and allowed the doctors to be questioned.