Barbara and Reed Stricklan sued Johnny C. Patterson for personal injuries sustained by Ms. Stricklan in a December 31, 2001, automobile accident. A jury ruled in favor of the Stricklans. Patterson appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for medical expenses, the admission of the treating physician's opinion on permanent impairment, and the jury verdict's alignment with the evidence's weight. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Ms. Stricklan, who had a history of five ruptured discs and a previous neck injury from a slip and fall in December 2003, was treated by Dr. Joel Ragland, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Ragland testified about Ms. Stricklan’s neck pain following the accident and her prior spinal surgeries. He diagnosed her with a cervical strain, explained that her shoulder pain was related to her neck injury, and recommended various treatments, including physical therapy and epidural steroid injections. Despite these interventions, Ms. Stricklan continued to experience pain, and Dr. Ragland ultimately released her from care after finding no significant relief from treatments.
Ms. Stricklan experienced increased shoulder pain during motion, prompting a referral to Dr. Holloway, an orthopedist, who diagnosed a torn rotator cuff via MRI. During her final visit with Dr. Ragland in January 2004, she continued to report neck pain, attributed to a whiplash injury from a December 2001 motor vehicle accident. Dr. Ragland felt he could no longer provide medical assistance for her condition. At trial, Stricklan clarified she sought compensation solely for her neck injuries, not for the torn rotator cuff. She indicated that the medical expenses presented did not relate to the incident or Dr. Holloway's treatment.
Dr. Ragland testified about the nature of her neck injuries, affirming they were consistent with those typically seen in rear-end collisions, but he could not opine on the shoulder injury. He asserted that the neck injury would not shorten her life expectancy but might make her more sensitive to pain. He could not predict whether her condition would worsen or improve with age, nor did he identify any beneficial treatments available. He acknowledged the possibility of ongoing pain and the potential need for intermittent medication, but he could not determine if she would develop arthritis or degenerative changes due to the injuries. During cross-examination, it was revealed that Ms. Stricklan had previously reported neck pain, contradicting her claims of being problem-free after past surgeries. Notably, Dr. Smith's earlier notes indicating shoulder pain were introduced but he was not called to testify.
Defense counsel presented the April 4, 2002, records from Parkwest Emergency Room indicating that Ms. Stricklan was "trampled" by a cow, resulting in pain in her left shoulder and left leg. Dr. Ragland, during cross-examination, admitted he had not seen Ms. Stricklan in the three years preceding the trial and failed to document an evaluation of her permanent neck pain impairment. He acknowledged not considering her potential permanent impairment until the day of the trial and noted he had ample opportunity to assess her condition during prior evaluations between 2002 and January 2004. The jury awarded Ms. Stricklan $65,000 in damages and Mr. Stricklan $10,000 for loss of consortium. The defendant appealed, questioning the sufficiency of the plaintiff's proof for medical expenses, the trial court's decision to allow Dr. Ragland's testimony regarding Ms. Stricklan's permanent impairment, and the jury's verdict in relation to the evidence weight. The standard of review dictates that jury findings in civil cases can only be overturned if unsupported by material evidence. The appellate court must view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, assuming the truth of supporting evidence while discarding countervailing evidence. The admissibility of expert testimony is at the trial court's discretion, upheld under an abuse of discretion standard unless reasonable minds could not disagree on the decision. Legal conclusions made by the trial court are reviewed de novo. A plaintiff must demonstrate the reasonableness and necessity of claimed medical expenses, requiring expert opinion on the physician's services and charges to recover these expenses.
Defendant argues that plaintiffs failed to provide competent evidence for Ms. Stricklan's medical expenses, noting discrepancies between Dr. Joel Ragland's deposition testimony of $18,403.61 and the trial presentation of $14,335.61. Dr. Ragland clarified that not all expenses in the higher figure were related to injuries from the motor vehicle accident, identifying specific bills, including those for a torn rotator cuff and unrelated radiology studies, that were not connected to the accident. The Trial Court permitted Dr. Ragland's expert testimony and the medical expense summary into evidence, which the court found to be appropriate under the abuse of discretion standard.
Additionally, defendant challenges Dr. Ragland's assessment of Ms. Stricklan's permanent impairment, asserting that it lacked sufficient basis since it was not documented in his records, he had not examined her for three years, and he did not provide an adequate foundation for his opinion. However, Dr. Ragland testified that, based on Ms. Stricklan’s medical history and previous studies, he diagnosed her with a "whiplash type injury" and estimated a three percent permanent impairment related to her neck injury from the accident. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting this testimony, affirming that it was relevant for the fact finder’s consideration.
Determining an impairment requires stability in the condition without anticipated changes. It has been approximately two years since the individual’s injury when the last examination occurred in January 2004, providing sufficient time to evaluate whether her condition had improved or remained stable. Dr. Ragland testified that he had enough information to address the issue of permanent impairment, and the trial judge allowed this testimony, indicating any objections were more about weight than admissibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Ragland’s evidence.
The defendant argued that the jury's verdict favored the plaintiffs contrary to the weight of the evidence and claimed the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial. When assessing such a motion, the trial court acts as a “thirteenth juror,” responsible for weighing the evidence to determine if it supports the verdict. The trial court found the evidence supported the jury’s decision, which was upheld as there was material evidence backing the plaintiffs' claims.
The appellate review focused on whether sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's award, affirming that the trial court acted appropriately in both admitting Dr. Ragland's testimony and denying the new trial motion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with the costs of the appeal assigned to the defendant, Johnny C. Patterson.
