 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gensler v. Paulson1/25/2005
In this appeal from the denial of posttrial motions in a personal-injury action, James Paulson challenges the adequacy of the record to support the jury's award of future medical expenses. Because the evidence adequately establishes the need for future medical treatment and also provides a basis for computing the cost of the treatment, we affirm.
FACTS
Martin Gensler sued James Paulson for injuries resulting from an automobile accident that occurred on June 16, 1997. Gensler sought, in part, damages for future medical expenses, and he presented evidence on future medical expenses through the deposition testimony of two medical experts.
The first, Dr. Michael Gibbs, a chiropractor, testified that he saw Gensler approximately two weeks after the accident on July 1, 1997. At that time, Gensler was experiencing pain from the base of his skull through his low back. According to Gibbs, this pain was due to "residuals of acute traumatic cervical thoracic and lumbar strain" caused by the accident. He encouraged Gensler to continue physical therapy and corrective exercises and provided "cervical, thoracic and lumbar manipulation" to relieve Gensler's pain.
Gibbs provided six more manipulation treatments between September 9 and November 6, 1997; five treatments between December 5, 1997 and January 6, 1998; one treatment on April 2, 1998; and one treatment each week between August and November 1998. He also saw Gensler once on August 5, 2000. Gibbs explained that Gensler periodically stopped treatment in an attempt to manage the pain with corrective exercise learned through physical therapy, but he resumed manipulation treatment when the pain became severe. Gibbs further explained that, although Gensler was experiencing continuing pain from November 1998 through August 2000, Gensler stopped seeking treatment because he had moved. Gibbs noted his understanding that, after moving, Gensler did not seek treatment from a different chiropractor because he feared insurance would not cover the cost of his care.
Gibbs testified that, in his opinion, Gensler was suffering from a "permanent musculoskeletal condition" to the "cervical, thoracic and lumbar" area. According to Gibbs, Gensler will experience "permanent" pain in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine and will "have limited range of motion." Gibbs testified that "the best [Gensler] can look forward is to maximize his potential and resolve his pain with temporary help such as [chiropractic] manipulation, exercises, taking . . . over-the-counter medication" and, if necessary, going "to a medical doctor stronger medication." Gibbs said that he would continue to recommend chiropractic care in the future, assuming, as expected, that Gensler's pain continues. Finally, Gibbs testified to a report from an orthopedist who examined Gensler after the accident. The orthopedist "recommended further physical therapy and chiropractic care as needed."
Gensler's second medical expert, Dr. David Dorn, a neurologist, testified to seeing Gensler twice after the June 1997 accident. Dorn determined that Gensler had a "permanent" soft-tissue injury as a result of the accident. Dorn stated that he did not think Gensler's symptoms "were going to go away" and that he believed Gensler "was going to have permanent problems." Dorn recommended a course of treatment that included exercise, over-the-counter medication, and restrictions on some types of activities. Dorn noted that Gensler was receiving ongoing chiropractic treatment. In addition, Dorn reviewed Gensler's medical-treatment records extending from the date of the June 1997 accident and testified that he believed those treatments were reasonable and necess
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|