 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruwaene v. Barclay Seafood1/31/2000
ery period whether to seek a CR 35 exam. In fact, Barclay had made this decision and scheduled an exam in August. Barclay's argument completely ignores the fact that VanBruwaene had cooperated fully and appeared voluntarily for that appointment. The examination was cancelled when the physician unreasonably refused to conduct the exam in the presence of her representative even though he was aware of her right under the rule to have the representative present.
This occurred approximately 3 weeks before the end of the discovery period, yet Barclay failed to move to compel an exam until after the discovery deadline. The trial court acted within its discretion in finding lack of good cause to require VanBruwaene to appear yet again for a CR 35 exam after the end of the discovery period.
Finally, Barclay argues the verdict of $75,000 in future economic damages is not supported by the evidence. He asks that the matter be remanded for elimination of this part of the judgment or for a new trial. This argument also fails.
The general rule is that one may recover for future medical expenses reasonably certain to be incurred. Prior to an allowance for the cost of future medical care, evidence must indicate the care will be necessitated by the plaintiff's injury . Once liability for damages is established, a more liberal rule is applied when allowing assessment of the damage amount. Mathematical precision is not required. Evidence of past medical bills and records is admissible 'to prove costs of future treatment.'
In this case, VanBruwaene presented evidence that she had sustained permanent injuries, that she continued to suffer ongoing pain and curtailment of activity, and that she had received medical treatment for the impairments, for which she will continue to incur similar expenses in the future. There was evidence that over a 4-year period VanBruwaene had incurred medical expenses of $3,785, a rate that would produce substantial future medical expenses. There was also evidence that if she requires surgery in the future, the cost will be $15,000 to $30,000 plus additional follow-up treatment.
We do not find that the verdict is so excessive as to be outside the range of evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in entering judgment on the verdict.
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|