 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wal-mart Stores v. Clark12/18/1998
onably necessary, is unsupported by the record and without merit. A plaintiff has the burden of proving that medical expenses for which he seeks recovery were reasonably necessary. See 1 STEIN, supra, ยง 5:1, at 220; Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 746 F.2d 816, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The fact that the MRI results were negative, however, does not mean the tests were not reasonably necessary to treat Clark's injury. Clark's doctors stated their reasons for ordering the tests, and why they believed the testing to be necessary. Wal-Mart did not present any evidence challenging the doctors' course of action in attempting to treat Clark's continuing discomfort. As explained above, the jury had a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that Clark's fall caused his injuries. Likewise, the doctors' uncontroverted testimony provided a sufficient basis upon which to award Clark the cost of the MRIs as part of his damages.
The jury's verdict in favor of Clark is affirmed in all respects.
|