 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. Squibb1/29/2004
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED.
Barney, P.J., and Garrison, J., concur.
Opinion: AFFIRMED
Susan Adams ("Appellant") appeals from an adverse judgment in a personal injury action stemming from a motor vehicle collision. With two points relied on, Appellant contends that the trial court committed plain error in denying her motion for new trial based on allegedly improper statements made during closing arguments, and that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for allocation for expert expenses because the defendants are required to pay for such expenses.
Facts
On May 17, 1996, Appellant was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Sandra Perry in the left northbound lane of Highway 65 near the off ramp for Highway 60 West in Springfield, Missouri. As Perry slowed or stopped her vehicle in the lane of traffic, David Squibb, driving a bus as an employee for Crabtree Harmon Corporation ("Crabtree"), was unable to stop and struck the rear of a vehicle stopped ahead of him. That vehicle then struck the rear of Perry' ;s vehicle.
Appellant filed suit against Perry, Squibb, and Crabtree, claiming negligence that caused Appellant's personal injuries, specifically, a cervical strain and contusion of the left foot. According to Appellant, a non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug, Relafen, that she was prescribed for the injury to her foot "resulted in membranous glomerulopathy and advanced diffuse interstitial fibrosis of the kidney[,]" for which she requires dialysis and eventual kidney transplant. She sought damages for the injuries and subsequent kidney-related problems, including past and future medial expenses, loss of earning capacity, and shortened life expectancy.
The case proceeded to trial and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendants Perry, Squibb, and Crabtree. The trial court entered its final judgment accepting the jury's verdict on December 6, 2002. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on January 6, 2003, and a motion for allocation of expert expenses to defendants on March 24, 2003. Both motions were overruled and this appeal followed. Additional facts necessary to the analysis of Appellant's points are detailed below.
Discussion
Point I: Improper Closing Arguments
In her first point, Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred by denying her motion for new trial based on allegedly improper statements made during closing arguments. Appellant did not object to the remarks during trial, but did raise the issue in her motion for new trial.
The collision occurred on May 17, 1996, and Appellant first sought medical attention for her injuries on June 15, 1996, through an emergency room visit. According to Appellant, she waited to seek treatment because she wanted to give the injuries an opportunity to heal, and she wondered if she "was giving it enough time." During the remainder of 1996 and throughout 1997, Appellant continued to be treated, primarily for the injury to her left foot.
In January 1998, Appellant was advised to discontinue taking the Relafen she had been prescribed since August 1996, based on evidence of kidney " insufficiency" and a deterioration of kidney function. She was referred to a nephrologist, Dr. Gary Kell, who also suspected that Appellant's kidney disease was related to the Relafen.
Prior to filing the lawsuit, counsel for Appellant sent a letter to Dr. Kell asking him to explain the cause of Appellant's renal failure. Dr. Kell indicated that, "from a reasonable point of view[,]" Appellant's kidney disease was caused by the Relafen. However, he noted, "It can be said that it [the kidney disease] is in n
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|