This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ve patients and leading them to believe that the steroids were antihistamines not semi-automatic, does not engage in this habit without thinking Habit can be proved through either opinion testimony or specific acts evidence. Routine Practice of an Organization Read pages 102 103 in Rules of Evidence Handbook WEIL v. SEITZER [Habit and Routine Practice What qualifies? FRE 406]
Facts: Weil died unexpectedly at age of 54. Treating physicians could not explain the cause of his death nor could they account for a series of recent medical problems which he suffered from prior to his death. Dr. Seltzer had treated Weil for more than 20 years and regularly prescribed medicine for which Weil was led to believe where antihistamines but were actually steroids. Autopsy was consistent with long-term steroid use/ his other medical problems made sense once it was confirmed that Weil was taking steroids. Procedural Posture: Weil's estate contacted eight of D's former patients and learned that each had been treated by D for man years and...
View Full Document