 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lawler v. Hensley12/21/2000
trial court's order involved questions of law, our review is de novo. Smith v. Bates Technical Coll., 139 Wn.2d 793, 800, 991 P.2d 1135 (2000). Recalling Witnesses after Motion to Dismiss
We first address Mr. Lawler's contention that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request to recall the two medical doctors who testified at trial. The recalling of a witness prior to the close of a party's case is a matter for the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Martinez, 53 Wn. App. 709, 717, 770 P.2d 646 (1989). A trial court is responsible for controlling the mode and order of witnesses and presentation of evidence pursuant to ER 611. The rule is designed to make the presentation of evidence effective to ascertain truth, avoid waste of time, and protect witnesses from harassment or embarrassment. ER 611(a). In making his motion to recall the witnesses, Mr. Lawler cited for the court Glass v. Carnation Co., 60 Wn.2d 341, 342, 373 P.2d 775 (1962). In Glass, our Supreme Court found it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to refuse a request to recall a witness on the issue of liability following a motion to dismiss. Here, however, the trial court distinguished the facts of the Glass case, concluding that the witness to be recalled in Glass was already present in the courtroom. To the contrary, Mr. Lawler's witnesses were two medical doctors with active practices and neither was present in the courtroom when Mr. Lawler made the motion to recall them. In explaining its decision to deny the motion to recall the witnesses, the court explained that Mr. Lawler had more than enough time to examine the physician witnesses during his case in chief. It could not justify the time delay in waiting for the physicians to get to court on short notice considering the inconvenience to the jury, the court, and the Hensleys, who were waiting to put on their defense. This was not an abuse of discretion.
Reasonable and Necessary Medical Costs
A plaintiff requesting remuneration for medical costs in a personal injury lawsuit has the burden of proving that medical costs were reasonable and necessary. In so doing, the plaintiff cannot rely solely on medical records and bills. Patterson v. Horton, 84 Wn. App. 531, 542-43, 929 P.2d 1125 (1997). '{M}edical records and bills are relevant to prove past medical expenses only if supported by additional evidence that the treatment and the bills were both necessary and reasonable.' Id. at 543. Here, Mr. Lawler failed to elicit testimony from Drs. Gray and Stanek regarding the cost of Mr. Lawler's medical treatment or whether the treatment provided was reasonable and necessary. He did, however, bring into evidence the required information from the chiropractor. Accordingly, the jury did have some information on which it could have considered economic damages. The trial court erred when it granted the Hensleys' CR 50 motion, which effectively denied Mr. Lawler the right to have a jury of his peers decide the case.
The trial court decision is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. Mr. Lawler's request for fees and costs is denied.
A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Schultheis, J.
WE CONCUR:
Sweeney, A.C.J.
Kato, J.
|