Indiana Supreme Court Clarifies Rule Relating to Defense Expert's Testimony Concluding as to the Necessity of Plaintiff's Medical Treatment
In Sibbing v. Cave, the Indiana Supreme Court ("ISC") recently affirmed the trial court's decision to strike portions of the defense expert's videotape deposition testimony which challenged the medical necessity of some of the plaintiff's medical treatment she received as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Sibbing v. Cave, No. 49S02-0906-CV-00275, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 123 (March 4, 2010).
The defense expert testified that the nerve conduction studies and "passive care" treatment provided to the plaintiff four or more weeks after the accident was unnecessary. Defendant unsuccessfully argued a party can only recover damages for medical expenses that he/she proves are both reasonable and necessary. In reaching its holding, the ISC stated that defendant did "not assert that such treatment lacks causation in fact, that is, that plaintiff failed to establish that, but for the collision, the challenged treatment would not have occurred." Instead, the defendant attempted to use their expert's testimony to dispute "the medical judgment of the plaintiff's medical providers in choosing to administer the questioned studies and treatment," which "[defendant] may not do."
