Motion in Limine to Bar Defense Introduction of Evidence Concerning Prior Injury

STATE OF ___________ SUPERIOR COURT

COUNTY OF ___________

MARY JOHNSON )

)

v. ) C.A. No. ________________

)

DAVID SMITH )

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO BAR DEFENSE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING PRIOR INJURY

On (insert date of incident) Plaintiff was injured in a rear-end collision when her vehicle was struck by a vehicle owned and operated by the Defendant. Plaintiff sustained serious injury to her neck and spine, and was diagnosed as having a herniated disc at L4-L5. Plaintiff has incurred months of medical treatment and continues to be disabled from that injury.

In the course of discovery, Defendant asked an interrogatory concerning Plaintiff's prior health history and in response to that interrogatory, Plaintiff disclosed that nine years earlier she had suffered a job-related injury and received Workers' Compensation for a back strain. Plaintiff was not hospitalized for the injury and was out of work for 11 days. over nine years ago, Plaintiff's then treating physicians discharged her, noted in their records that the injury had fully and properly healed, and Plaintiff resumed work without incident for over nine years.

In his Pretrial Memorandum, Defendant has disclosed that he intends on offering evidence of the Plaintiff's prior work-related injury over nine years ago in an effort to "impeach the treating physician's diagnosis that the Plaintiff has suffered a herniated disc as a result of this accident." Plaintiff requests that this Court rule in limine that the records, and any testimony concerning the Plaintiff's prior health history as it relates to a work-related injury and a sprained back over nine years ago, are not relevant. Alternatively, even if relevant, any relevance is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion and misleading the jury.

First, the evidence of the prior injury is not relevant. The applicable Rules of Evidence provide that relevant evidence is evidence that has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Here, evidence of a prior injury that had fully healed over nine years ago; that had not re-manifested itself; and for which Plaintiff experienced no discomfort, disability or pain, is not relevant in determining whether the Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc in the subject incident with Defendant.

Accordingly, the introduction of the evidence...