Section 13.25 Situations in Which Expert Medical Testimony Is Permitted

• Library: Sources of Proof (2014 Ed.)

D. (§13.25) Situations in Which Expert Medical Testimony Is Permitted

Even if expert medical testimony is not required, it may be desirable. Expert medical testimony has been used as a source of proof in a variety of cases, including use to establish:

· the cause of a disease, Pippin v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., 799 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990) (exposure to a hazard at a job caused silicosis);

· the cause of injury, Kummer v. Cruz, 752 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988);

· the cause of death, Dorsey v. Muilenburg, 345 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. 1961);

· the extent of disability, Moore v. Parks, 458 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. 1970);

· alternatives to a given treatment, Breeding v. Dodson Trailer Repair, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. banc 1984);

· reasonably probable future treatment needed by a plaintiff, Bynote v. Nat’l Super Mkts., Inc., 891 S.W.2d 117, 124–25 (Mo. banc 1995) (but testimony as to the future consequences of an injury is permitted only if the consequences are reasonably likely to occur, Hobbs v. Harken, 969 S.W.2d 318, 324 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998));

• whether a person is competent, Foster v. Henderson, 538 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. App. W.D. 1976) (competency to convey property); Cozean v. Heisler, 612 S.W.2d 817 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981) (competency to execute a deed); Brooks v. Travelers Ins. Co., 515 S.W.2d 821 (Mo. App. W.D. 1974) (sanity at the time of suicide); but see Rice v. Haltom, 599 S.W.2d 248 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980) (a neurologist’s testimony as to competence invaded the province of

...