Perlson v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance

Citations: 23 Wis. 2d 391; 127 N.W.2d 69; 1964 Wisc. LEXIS 412

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; March 31, 1964; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Judgment was rendered in favor of Robert Perlson, with the court affirming the decision despite the defendants’ appeal, as they did not identify any errors affecting the judgment. The case also involved Philip Perlson, whose damages were evaluated by a jury at $4,866 for medical expenses and $12,500 for pain, suffering, and disability, with no loss of earnings noted. The defendants contested the damage findings, claiming insufficient evidence to link Philip Perlson's post-accident sufferings to the collision, while not disputing the amount if causation was established.

The court examined whether the 1958 collision was a significant factor in worsening Perlson's existing back issues, which had persisted for years prior. Philip Perlson, born in 1920, had a history of back problems, including a herniated disc diagnosed following a 1955 accident. After the 1958 incident, he experienced severe back pain and was treated for various conditions, ultimately leading to multiple surgeries for recurrent herniated discs. Medical professionals, including Dr. Diamond and Dr. Mufson, diagnosed new injuries post-collision and attributed them to the accident. Dr. Waisman noted that Perlson's condition had worsened since before the 1958 accident, indicating a significant increase in disability. The evidence presented supported the conclusion that the 1958 accident contributed to the worsening of Perlson's back condition.

Dr. Mufson opined that the 1958 accident aggravated Philip Perlson's symptoms and contributed to a second herniation of the disc, establishing a causal link to Perlson's pain, suffering, disability, and associated medical expenses. These opinions were presented with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, which could support a jury's finding unless shown to lack legal foundation. The defense challenged these opinions by asserting that the doctors' assumptions regarding Perlson's condition from March 1957 to December 1958 were unsubstantiated. Dr. Diamond noted that Perlson appeared to be fully recovered after a 1955 operation until the 1958 accident. Dr. Mufson based his opinion on Perlson's reported well-being and lack of medical visits during that interval. However, Perlson had previously reported pain and a 25 percent permanent partial disability, suggesting inconsistencies in the doctors' assumptions. Perlson testified that while he experienced some discomfort in early 1957, he improved significantly by March 1957 and was able to work without complaints until the 1958 accident, indicating a stable condition prior to that event. Additionally, although Perlson experienced severe pain in March 1960 and was involved in another accident in 1961, the expert opinions regarding the 1958 accident's impact were not undermined. The circuit judge, having observed the witnesses, concluded that the evidence supported the finding that the 1958 accident caused Perlson's subsequent increased suffering and disability, a conclusion that was upheld upon review.

Defendants' evidence regarding Perlson's settlement of $13,000 for injuries from a 1955 collision was rejected as irrelevant; the only pertinent facts about the 1955 accident had already been presented to the court, and the new evidence did not enhance or challenge any witness testimony. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought to amend the original complaint concerning the description of injuries, correcting inadvertent misstatements. The court permitted the amendment, which clarified the injuries without introducing a new cause of action, thus not violating the statute of limitations. The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing this correction. Both judgments were affirmed.