Section 21 Proof of the Cause, Nature, and Extent of Plaintiff’s Injuries

• Library: Damages 2012

A physician is usually the witness whose job it is in a personal injury action to present in detail the medical aspects of a plaintiff’s injuries. This assignment may include the following tasks:

a. Listing and describing the plaintiff’s injuries, including aggravation of any preexisting conditions:

· Schweikert v. Kansas City, 358 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Mo. App. W.D. 1962) (medical testimony established that a difficult operation would be required to repair a preexisting hernia because of additional damage caused by an auto collision)

· Shannon v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 974 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (evidence that injuries sustained by a store customer exacerbated her multiple sclerosis was admissible; the jury was entitled to hear about the customer’s medical condition and prognosis resulting from the injuries)

b. Explaining the course of plaintiff’s treatment, including testimony about:

(1) Plaintiff’s diagnosis:

· Young v. St. Louis Univ., 773 S.W.2d 143, 145–46 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989) (the trial court properly admitted testimony of three psychiatrists that the plaintiff suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and did not have post-traumatic stress syndrome as she claimed)

· Elam v. Alcolac, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 42, 189–90 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) (the trial court properly permitted an expert in toxicology and epidemiology to testify in a toxic chemical tort case that the plaintiffs suffered from “chronic systemic chemical intoxication,” even though that was not a recognized disease, because the expert used that as a generic designation and gave specific subdiagnoses of the particular manifestation of bodily disease and dysfunction suffered by each individual plaintiff)

· Patrick v. Alphin, 825 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (testimony from a clinical neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist that the plaintiff had a temporal lobe disorder, causing him to display “organic brain syndrome, explosive type” was admissible and sufficient to establish medical causation even though the condition cannot be detected through objective medical tests like EEGs, CAT scans, or MRIs)

(2) Operations, tests, or other treatment the plaintiff received.

(3) Any pain or discomfort associated with the plaintiff’s injuries:

· Vitale v. Biando, 52 S.W.2d 24, 25 (Mo. App. E.D. 1932) (competent to show a brain concussion is painful)

· Eickmann v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 253 S.W.2d 122, 127–31 (Mo. 1952) (the physician who had examined the plaintiff and to whom the plaintiff complained of pain during the examination could express an opinion, based on his examination and findings, whether the plaintiff’s pain was bona fide or feigned)

· Kirk v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 27 S.W.2d 739, 743–44 (Mo. App. W.D. 1930) (the physician is competent to express an opinion that the plaintiff’s face showed an expression of pain and was not feigning pain)

(4) Complications the plaintiff suffered.

(5) Medications the plaintiff took in the hospital.

(6) Any medical devices, rehabilitative equipment,
or adaptive aids required to treat the plaintiff’s condition.

c. Describing the plaintiff’s present condition, paying particular attention to:

(1) Continuing symptoms:

· Tate v. Wabash R. Co., 141 S.W. 459, 461 (Mo. App. W.D. 1911) (evidence showing whether the physical condition getting better or worse was admissible)

· Dickerson v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 286 S.W.2d 820, 826 (Mo. banc 1956) (it is proper for a physician to express an opinion that the plaintiff was not feigning injuries)

· Bedenk v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 285 S.W.2d 609, 615 (Mo. 1955) (the physician’s testimony that a tremor of the plaintiff’s eyelids and hands was a type no one could feign was admissible)

(2) Any impairment or limitation of bodily function. Knipp v. Mankin, 336 S.W.2d 371, 374–75 (Mo. 1960) (the doctor’s opinion that the plaintiff has 50% disability in the plaintiff’s back was admissible).

(3) Nervousness or worry caused by the plaintiff’s injuries. Hoffman v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 255 S.W.2d 736, 741–43 (Mo. 1953) (a physician testified that loss of an ovary made the unmarried plaintiff permanently nervous and worried about losing the other ovary and becoming sterile or being rejected by a potential spouse because of this condition).

(4) The effect of the plaintiff’s condition on the ability to work, do household...