Iowa Court Of Appeals Issues Reminder About Importance Of Medical Testimony In Personal Injury Cases

I’ve spoken before about the importance of medical testimony in personal injury cases arising out of car accidents and motorcycle accidents. Accident victims cannot go to court and expect to just tell juries what parts of their bodies they believe were hurt and get a bunch of money. Victims need more than that in court.

A victim’s complaints about injuries must be corroborated by medical evidence. That can come from the victim’s treating healthcare provider or a hired independent medical expert witness. It’s unlikely that an accident victim will receive compensation for any complaints that aren’t supported by appropriate medical evidence.

The Iowa Court of appeals recently reiterated this important point in Philip West v. Sophia Stafford. Mr. West was out for a walk when Ms. Stafford hit him with her car. He sued her for personal injuries.

One of Mr. West’s claims was for damage to his teeth. He sought compensation for future dental work. The jury declined to give him any. Mr. West appealed, arguing that the jury should’ve awarded compensation for future dental work.

On appeal, Mr. West asserted that the verdict was insufficient because it did not cover the cost of repairing several teeth broken in the accident. The court of appeals noted that to recover the cost of future medical treatment, a plaintiff must furnish substantial proof of the necessity for future treatment and the cost of that treatment. Although Mr. West presented a dentist’s estimate that it would cost $5,160 to repair his teeth, he had not scheduled that treatment.

The court of appeals also observed that the trial record left questions about the cause of Mr. West’s dental problems. He testified that he could not remember if he hit his head during the accident or if he suffered a concussion. He also testified that he did not know why his medical records did not mention any scratches, bruises, or cuts to his face. Although Mr. West claimed that the damaged teeth occurred in the accident, he did not explain how such damage could have occurred in the absence of a blow to the head. Given the uncertainty in Mr. West’s testimony and the fact he had not sought treatment for his teeth despite three years between the accident and trial, the court of appeals upheld the jury’s verdict that he wasn’t entitled to compensation for damage to his teeth.

There are two key takeaways from this case. First, regarding compensation for future care, it doesn’t appear that Mr. West had a dentist testify about the necessity of such care. That might’ve been crucial. Normally, claims for future medical treatment are supported by a medical evdience who states that future treatment is reasonable and necessary and provides and estimate of the future treatment’s cost.

Second, medical evidence linking injuries to an accident is vital. Mr. West didn’t have a dentist testify that his teeth were probably damaged because of the accident. Ideally, that claim would be set up by a prompt visit to a dentist, who hears the history of the car accident, the strike of the head on the pavement, and the immediate pain to the teeth, and then assesses a traumatic injury as a result of the motor vehicle accident. That apparently didn’t happen in Mr. West’s case. That was fatal to his claim for compensation for damage to his teeth.