Title: Knapp v. Wilkins
Citation: 786 So. 2d 457
Docket Number: 1981139
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 22, 2000

786 So. 2d 457 (2000)
Karin Jackie KNAPP
v.
Jason Barclay WILKINS.
1981139.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 8, 2000.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing November 22, 2000.
*458 Joseph J. Boswell, Mobile, for appellant.
Charles J. Potts of Janecky Newell, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.
JOHNSTONE, Justice.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment and other rulings in favor of the defendant in a tort action arising from a motorvehicle collision. Karin Jackie Knapp ("the plaintiff") sued Jason Barclay Wilkins ("the defendant") and John Wilkins for damages for injuries she sustained. The parties joined in a motion, which the trial court granted, to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against John Wilkins (but not Jason Wilkins). Thereafter, a jury tried the plaintiffs claims against the defendant Jason Wilkins and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
The plaintiff appeals to this Court on three grounds: 1) the trial court erred in refusing to allow the chiropractor who treated the plaintiff to state his opinion of the cause of the plaintiffs injuries; 2) the trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to call as an adverse witness Shafawnia Silvers, the defendant's girlfriend at the time of the accident; and 3) the trial court erred in refusing to ask, and in refusing to allow the plaintiff to ask, on voir dire whether the veniremembers who had insurance policies with the defendant's insurance company would be partial to the defendant because of the veniremembers' connections with the insurance company. The only issue addressed in this opinion is whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the treating chiropractor to testify to the cause of the plaintiffs injuries. Our reversing the judgment of the trial court on this issue pretermits any discussion of the other issues raised by the plaintiff.
During the plaintiffs case-in-chief, plaintiffs counsel presented portions of the deposition testimony of the treating chiropractor, Dr. Robert Hutchins. Dr. Hutchins studied chiropractic at St. Louis *459 Community College and Logan College of Chiropractic. By the time he treated the plaintiff, Dr. Hutchins had practiced for 10 years as a licensed chiropractor. He had never treated the plaintiff before July 28, 1996, when she first sought his care for injuries she had sustained in this motorvehicle collision a week earlier, on July 21, 1996. (R. 138.) Dr. Hutchins "did a chiropractic, orthopaedic, and neurological examination of her injuries and concluded that she had sustained several soft tissue and other injuries." (R. 139.) During his treatment of the plaintiff, Dr. Hutchins referred her to Dr. White and Dr. Fleet, neurologists, and to Dr. Morgan, an orthodontist. Dr. Hutchins himself treated the plaintiff a total of 91 times. (R. 145.)
The plaintiff tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to introduce Dr. Hutchins's deposition testimony on the cause of the injuries he had found and treated in the plaintiff. The pertinent questions, answers, objections, proffers, and rulings follow:
(R. 140-45.) (Emphasis added.) The following day the plaintiffs counsel continued:
(R. 235-39.) (Emphasis added.)
Rule 702, Ala.R.Evid., provides:
See also § 12-21-160, Ala.Code 1975. "The question whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert on a particular subject is largely within the discretion of the trial court, and that court's judgment on that question will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion." Brown v. Lawrence, 632 So. 2d 462, 464 (Ala.1994). See also Husby v. South Alabama Nursing Home, Inc., 712 So. 2d 750, 753 (Ala. 1998). However,
Kitchens v. State, 31 Ala.App. 239, 241, 14 So. 2d 739, 741 (1943) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Section 34-24-120, Ala.Code 1975, provides:
(Emphasis added.) Our case of Mashner v. Pennington, 729 So. 2d 262 (Ala.1998), recognizes that a qualified licensed chiropractor is a "health care provider" under the Medical Liability Act, § 6-5-549.1(c), Ala.Code 1975. "A qualified licensed practitioner of chiropractic is competent to testify as a medical expert in his limited area of the healing art and offer an opinion of reasonable certainty as to whether or not an injury he is qualified to treat, and has treated, is permanent and will require future treatment". Hoefer v. Snellgrove, 48 Ala.App. 11, 15, 261 So. 2d 426, 429 (1971), rev'd on other grounds, 288 Ala. 407, 261 So. 2d 431 (1972).
An expert witness may testify to the ultimate issue of causation in a tort action. Macon County Comm'n v. Sanders, 555 So. 2d 1054 (Ala.1990); and Harrison v. Wientjes, 466 So. 2d 125 (Ala.1985). A treating physician is competent to give his opinion of the cause of his patient's injuries. St. Louis &amp; S.F.R.R. v. Savage, 163 Ala. 55, 50 So. 113 (1909).
Lowery v. Jones, 219 Ala. 201, 202, 121 So. 704, 706 (1929) (emphasis added).
In support of the plaintiff's claim that chiropractor Dr. Hutchins was competent to testify about the cause of the plaintiff's injuries, she cites Hoefer v. Snellgrove, supra. In Hoefer, the trial court had excluded the chiropractor's testimony of his opinion about the permanency of the patient-plaintiff's back injury and about the residual effects of his back injury. The rationale of the trial court was that the chiropractor was not qualified, and that the medical doctor who treated the plaintiff was more qualified, to testify about these matters. Hoefer, 48 Ala.App. at 14, 261 So. 2d  at 428. Reversing the trial court, the Court of Civil Appeals held that a qualified chiropractor could testify as an expert about the extent and the permanency *463 of his patient's injury and about the present and future treatment of his patient. Id.
Although the issue in Hoefer is not identical to that in the case before us in that Hoefer does not specifically address whether a chiropractor can testify to the cause of his patient's injuries, Hoefer and the other cases and statutes cited in this opinion, considered together, support the proposition that a treating doctor, chiropractic or medical, is qualified to testify about the nature, the extent, the treatment, and the cause of his patient's injuries. For example, in Brown v. Lawrence, 632 So. 2d 462 (Ala.1994), the chiropractor who treated the plaintiff for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident with the defendant was allowed to testify, apparently without objection on these particular points, that "the injury from the accident exacerbated his pre-existing back condition," and that the plaintiffs "cartilage [was] scarred from the accident and ... would probably trigger recurring pain." Brown, 632 So. 2d  at 464. See also, e.g., Mississippi Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 487 So. 2d 1320 (Miss.1986); and Badke v. Barnett, 35 A.D.2d 347, 316 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1970) (holding that a treating chiropractor is qualified to give his expert opinion regarding diagnosis, causation, and prognosis of the plaintiffs injury).
On the basis of the foregoing law, we hold that Dr. Hutchins's education, licensure, and practice as a chiropractor, and his examination and treatment of his patient in his capacity as a chiropractor, qualified him as competent to testify to the cause of the particular injuries he treated. Thus the rulings of the trial court excluding Dr. Hutchins's testimony about causation on the ground "that a chiropractor who is not a medical doctor is not qualified to render an opinion as to the causation of an injury" constitute error to reverse. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HOUSTON, COOK, LYONS, BROWN, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX and SEE, JJ., dissent.
MADDOX, Justice (dissenting).
I do not believe Alabama law permits a chiropractor to testify as an expert witness on the causation of an injury. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
In my opinion, the trial judge properly refused to admit the testimony of Dr. Robert Hutchins, a chiropractor, regarding the cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries. I agree that in certain circumstances a properly licensed and qualified chiropractor may be allowed to testify as to the extent, the permanency, and the duration of a patient's injuries, see Hoefer v. Snellgrove, 48 Ala.App. 11, 261 So. 2d 426 (1971), as long as a proper predicate is laid, but I disagree with the proposition that a chiropractor is qualified to testify about the cause of a patient's injuries.
I find this case analogous to Kriewitz v. Savoy Heating &amp; Air Conditioning Co., 396 So. 2d 49 (Ala.1981), in which I wrote the Court's opinion. In Kriewitz, the trial court allowed two clinical psychologists to testify that the plaintiffs had suffered brain damage and, in fact, one of the psychologists was permitted to state that one of the plaintiffs had "organic brain syndrome." 396 So. 2d  at 52. However, the trial court refused to allow the psychologists to testify as to the cause of the plaintiffs' conditions. This court held, based on § 34-26-1, Ala.Code 1975, which details certain rights and limitations regarding psychologists in Alabama, that the *464 trial court did not err in refusing to permit the psychologists to testify as experts regarding the cause of the plaintiffs' conditions.
Sections 34-24-120 and 34-24-122 detail similar rights and limitations regarding chiropractors in Alabama. Given those statutes, I cannot agree that a chiropractor, who does not hold an "unlimited license to practice the healing arts in this state," may testify as to the cause of a patient's injuries. See Kriewitz, 396 So. 2d  at 53; and Hoefer, 48 Ala.App. at 15, 261 So. 2d  at 429 ("A qualified licensed practitioner of chiropractic is competent to testify as a medical expert in his limited area of the healing art and offer an opinion of reasonable certainty as to whether or not an injury he is qualified to treat, and has treated, is permanent and will require future treatment." (emphasis added)), rev'd on other grounds, 288 Ala. 407, 261 So. 2d 431 (1972).
Even assuming, however, that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the chiropractor to testify regarding the cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries, I would hold that the error was harmless because the same evidence that the trial court refused to admit through the chiropractor's testimony regarding causation was admitted through the testimony of two other medical experts (Dr. William Fleet, a neurologist; and Dr. John Morgan, an orthodontist). Apparently the jury was not convinced that the defendant's alleged negligence was the cause of the plaintiffs injuries, because the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
HOOPER, C.J., concurs.
[1]  Black's Law Dictionary 312 (6th ed. 1991), defines "diagnosis" as "[a] medical term, meaning the discovery of the source of a patient's illness or the determination of nature of his disease from the study of its symptoms." (Emphasis added.)