 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hudson v. Shorter6/8/1998
Shelby Circuit No. 78879 T.D.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY THE HONORABLE JAMES E. SWEARENGEN, JUDGE
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
Opinion filed:
This is an automobile personal injury case. The defendant, David Shorter, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court in a bench trial awarding plaintiff, Sylvia Hudson, $9,000.00 damages. Shorter's responsibility for the accident was stipulated, and the trial concerned only the issue of damages.
Although the collision caused relatively minor damage to the parties' vehicles, Hudson was taken to the emergency room of Methodist Hospital in Memphis immediately after the accident. She was examined and released without being referred to any health care professional. Hudson admitted that shortly thereafter she retained an attorney and was referred to Bellevue Clinic for treatment of alleged lower back and neck pain. Hudson visited the clinic on fourteen occasions, and her treatment included the application of hot and cold packs and the administration of ultrasound to her lower back and neck. Bellevue Clinic's bill totaled $2,655.00 for these visits. Subsequently, Bellevue Clinic referred Hudson to Dr. Paul Williams, an orthopedist. Dr. Williams administered similar conservative treatment to Hudson during the course of nine visits and charged her a total of $528.00.
Hudson sued Shorter for damages in general sessions court, and Shorter appealed to circuit court for a trial de novo. The case was tried in the circuit court by a Judge without a jury, and the bills for medical expenses were introduced into evidence by stipulation. Hudson also presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Williams concerning his care and treatment and also as proof that the major medical bill from Bellevue Clinic was reasonable and necessary. The trial court considered the deposition testimony in reaching its decision to award plaintiff $9,000.00 as damages. Shorter has appealed and presents in his brief these issues for review:
Under the surrounding circumstances, were the appellee's physician's opinions too speculative, and not within a sufficient degree of certainty to be admitted into evidence at trial:
a. With respect to his treatment of the appellee? And/Or
b. With respect to the treatment and bill allegedly incurred by the appellee with another physician?
In his deposition, Dr. Williams testified about Hudson's initial visit with him as follows:
Q. What were your findings after this physical examination?
A. My opinion was that she sustained a strain and sprain of a generalized nature of her lumbar spine.
Q. Was that consistent, Doctor, with an automobile accident that she gave a history of?
A. It could and might be caused by an automobile accident.
When asked whether his treatment rendered to Hudson during the course of her visits was "necessary," Dr. Williams stated:
She might have lived without the treatment, but I feel that the treatment was advised based on her medical complaints. And it was my thought that this treatment was what I would like to have done to me if I had the same complaint.
Dr. Williams, after reviewing Hudson's other related medical bills that itemized the treatments by Bellevue Clinic, testified:
Q. Do you have an opinion whether the treatment that Ms. Hudson received was necessary?
A. Again, these were treatments to relieve her complaints. She could live without the treatments but these would shorten the course of her -- the treatments rendered here would shorten the course of her complaints and
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|