 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gann v. Vickers3/15/2005
articular opinion whether or not he's competent to treat mental disorders. I would say psychiatrists are probably more experienced certainly and better able to treat it." We conclude that Bowman, on the facts presented in this case, was competent to provide expert medical testimony regarding Gann's psychological injury and that the trial court did not err in relying on Bowman's opinion in this regard.
Compliance of Bowman's and Gold's Reports With Rule 10
Vickers asserts that the trial court erred in relying on reports from Bowman and Gold, because such reports did not comply with rule 10 of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court's Rules of Procedure. Rule 10 provides:
The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court is not bound by the usual common law or statutory rules of evidence; and accordingly, with respect to medical evidence on hearings before a single judge of said court, written reports by a physician or surgeon duly signed by him, her or them and itemized bills may, at the discretion of the court, be received in evidence in lieu of or in addition to the personal testimony of such physician or surgeon . . . .
A signed narrative report by a physician or surgeon . . . setting forth the history, diagnosis, findings and conclusions of the physician or surgeon . . . and which is relevant to the case shall be considered evidence on which a reasonably prudent person is accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. . . .
Bowman last saw Gann in approximately August 2001. Vickers contends that certain reports solicited by Gann's attorney from Bowman in August and December 2002 failed to comply with rule 10 due to the "tremendous gap since last seeing [Gann]." Brief for appellant at 32. Vickers argues that no reasonably prudent person would rely on such reports in the conduct of serious affairs. Vickers asserts that in those reports, Bowman merely assumed, without seeing Gann, that Gann's condition was as it had been when he last saw her "years earlier." Id. at 33. Vickers also states: "The same could be said for . . . Gold's report, prepared a mere 7 days prior to trial . . . ." Id. Vickers does not assert, however, that the trial court erred in allowing Vickers' expert, Davis, to testify at trial. Davis testified at trial in 2003, yet had not seen Gann since his sole evaluation of her in 2000.
There is, in fact, nothing in rule 10 that requires such reports to be written contemporaneous with the physician's or surgeon's evaluation of a patient. Rule 10 merely requires " signed narrative report by a physician or surgeon . . . setting forth the history, diagnosis, findings and conclusions of the physician or surgeon . . . and which is relevant to the case . . . ." We see nothing in the reports referenced by Vickers that does not comply with these requirements. Vickers asserts that a "tremendous gap" between when a physician or surgeon evaluates a patient and when that physician or surgeon prepares a signed narrative report setting forth his or her findings makes such report one that a reasonably prudent person would not rely on in the conduct of serious affairs. Vickers, however, is reading into rule 10 a nonexistent time requirement. Rule 10 provides, essentially, that signed narrative reports by physicians or surgeons--which reports set forth the history, diagnosis, findings, and conclusions of the physicians or surgeons and which are relevant to the case--are to be considered evidence on which a reasonably prudent person would rely in the conduct of serious affairs.
We conclude, as did the review panel, that Vickers' assertions go more to the credibility and weight of Bowman's and Gold's reports than to the reports' admi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|