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."
In its opinion, the ISC disagreed with plaintiff's argument that under Coffey v. Coffey, statements made by plaintiff's health care provider to patient plaintiff are to be admitted under Indiana Trial Rule 803(4) hearsay exception. The ISC stated its disapproval for the holding in Coffey and wrote the "rationale for the 803(4) hearsay exception is that a declarant has a personal interest in obtaining a medical diagnosis and treatment, and this interest motivates the patient to provide truthful information." Consequently, plaintiff's testimony stating her doctor's comments about the results of her diagnostic tests and the cause of her pain "does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under Rule 803(4)."
