 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Whittaker v. Houston11/22/2005
Submitted: September 7, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
Upon an appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court awarding damages in a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident. Defendant-Appellant, Robert E. Whittaker, admitted liability for the automobile accident but denied the nature and extent of the injuries claimed by Plaintiff-Appellee Beverly Houston. At trial, Houston and her chiropractor testified on her behalf. Whittaker called an orthopedic surgeon to testify that, at most, Houston had a minor soft tissue injury. Whittaker claims the Superior Court erred in permitting the chiropractor to testify at all, in denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law, and in instructing the jury. Houston claims in a cross-appeal that the Superior Court erred when it precluded testimony from her chiropractor on causation. We find no merit to Whittaker's claims. We also find that although the Superior Court erred in limiting the testimony of the chiropractor on the facts of this case, the error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
I. Background
The issue of the competency of Houston's chiropractor was first raised by a pre-trial motion in limine filed by Whittaker to exclude the testimony of Dr. Andrew Leitzke at trial. Whittaker argued that Dr. Leitzke, who is licensed to practice chiropractic in Delaware, lacked the qualifications to testify on the causation of Houston's injuries because those opinions were beyond his expertise as a chiropractor. The trial judge ruled that Dr. Leitzke could testify on his findings, treatment and the nature and extent of the injury , including permanency. Notwithstanding this ruling, the trial judge granted Whittaker's motion on the issue of causation by stating, "the chiropractor may not testify as to the causal link between plaintiff's injury and the accident."
The case proceeded to trial with Houston and Dr. Leitzke testifying on her behalf. At the close of plaintiff's case, Whittaker moved for judgment as a matter of law upon the ground that there was no "competent medical testimony" showing that the automobile accident caused Houston's injuries. The trial judge denied the motion because Whittaker's own expert, Dr. Andrew Gelman, opined that if Houston's history was accepted, she had some injury from the accident. The trial judge also noted that Dr. Leitzke testified that Houston was, in fact, injured based upon the description given to him of the automobile accident by his patient.
During the defense case, the testimony of Dr. Andrew Gelman was introduced by deposition pursuant to the pre-trial stipulation and order. Dr. Gelman specifically opined that "Houston had, at most, a minor soft tissue injury affecting the neck and upper back as well as the lower back." He further testified that " f her history is to be believed", Houston did sustain soft tissue injuries from the motor vehicle accident.
After the evidence was presented, the trial judge instructed the jury on the applicable law prior to closing arguments. Regarding the expert witnesses, she explained that " n weighing the expert testimony you may consider the expert's qualifications, the reasons for the expert's opinion, the reliability of the information supporting the expert's opinion, as well as the factors I have previously mentioned for weighing the testimony of any other witness." She further instructed the jury:
You have heard medical experts being asked to give opinions based on a reasonable medical probability. In Delaware, a medical expert may not speculate
Page 1 2 3 4 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|