 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Desua v. Yokim3/5/2001
The parties to this appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County were involved in an automobile accident that occurred on September 9, 1993 in Rockville, Maryland. As a result of the accident, Diane DeSua, appellant, ultimately filed a negligence action against Scott Yokim, appellee, seeking "the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) in compensatory damages plus interest and costs." Appellee filed a pretrial motion "for partial summary judgment" on the ground that "the [appellant] has failed to designate any expert witness pursuant to her Answers to Interrogatories, the [appellant] has represented that she does not intend to call any expert witnesses at trial." Appellant filed an opposition to that motion in which she stated:
To put this matter in perspective, this case involves a relatively simple, rear-end accident. It is of the sort that does not justify huge expenses, including multiple medical experts. . . [Appellant] asserts that under [Vroom v. Arundel Gas Co., 262 Md. 657 (1971), and Simco Sales v. Schweigman, 237 Md. 180 (1964)], she will be able to meet her burden both as to the cause of her illness as well as the reasonableness of the medical expenses, without expert testimony.
At the conclusion of a hearing on appellee's motion, the Honorable Martha G. Kavanaugh announced the following conclusions:
... nder the case law I believe that you need an expert in a soft tissue injury to establish causation, and reasonableness, and fairness in the medical bills.
... I believe you do need an expert in the soft tissue injury to establish causation because there are many reasons why someone might have a neck injury besides a car accident.
... irst you would have to show that the accident caused the injuries, and then from the injuries you go to the pain and suffering and lost wages.
Judge Kavanaugh entered summary judgment in favor of appellee, and appellant now presents the following questions for our review:
1. DID THE COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONCLUDING AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT EXPERT TESTIMONY WAS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE REASONABLENESS AND NECESSITY OF MEDICAL EXPENSES IN SOFT TISSUE INJURY CASES?
2. DID THE COURT COMMIT REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONCLUDING AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT EXPERT TESTIMONY WAS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE AND PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES?
For the reasons that follow, we shall answer "no" to question one and "not in this case" to question two. We shall, therefore, affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Factual Background
The accident occurred after appellant had stopped her vehicle at a yield sign, and was waiting to turn right onto Interstate 370 from Fields Road. According to appellant, her vehicle was struck in the rear by the vehicle that appellee was driving, and she was "thrown forwards and then backwards and suffered immediate pain in her neck." Appellant contends that as a result of her injuries, she incurred medical costs, endured pain and suffering, and missed a total of 186 hours from her job .
Procedural History
The circuit court entered a Scheduling Order that required appellant to designate her expert witnesses by January 19, 1999. Appellant did not designate expert witnesses. On May 27, 1999, appellee filed a motion for partial summary judgment on grounds that appellant had not identified any witnesses who would offer expert testimony as to the fairness, reasonableness, and necessity of her medical bills. On July 8, 1999, the Honorable Ann S. Harrington denied the motion without prejudice, and ruled that appellee could s
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|