In a personal injury case, proving causation is just as important as proving fault. A great case of liability is nothing if you cannot establish a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries and medical treatment. If the plaintiff does not have the proper medical proof, a motion in limine, motion to strike or objection in some other form should be expected.
That great case on liability can turn into a nightmare if medical testimony on the issue of causation is excluded. An equally disastrous result will occur if plaintiff’s counsel is unable to get medical bills admitted into evidence.
A recent example of both problems occurred in Ambrose v. Batsuk. In Ambrose, the defendant admitted liability. In fact, a directed verdict was granted against the defendant on the issue of breach of the standard of care. However, the plaintiff’s medical causation testimony was excluded. The knock-out punch came when the plaintiff's claimed medical expenses were excluded by the trial judge, despite an attempt by the plaintiff to rely on the Tennessee statute which creates a presumption that medical expenses under $4000 are reasonable and necessary. The end result was a defendant's verdict following a jury trial.
A series of posts which will follow will address the issues associated with offering proof of injury causation, claims for future medical treatment and proving medical expenses. While these would seem to be basic issues, they often plague plaintiff's counsel and result in a forced non-suit, exclusion of key proof or an adverse verdict even when fault is not at issue.
Dan Berexa
Nashville, Tennessee
Comments