Opinion ID: 1212962
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: What Is The Consequences of The Absence of Medical Testimony to Support The Causal Connection Between Appellee's Neck Pains And The Accident for Which Appellant Concedes Liability?

Text: Appellant maintains that medical testimony was necessary to establish a connection between the accident described above and appellee's neck pains. As described above, appellee testified to numerous head injuries which were received in the accident (cuts, loosened and broken teeth). It was his testimony that he experienced a sore neck immediately after the accident and that he had never had neck pains prior to the accident. It was his statement that after the accident, he experienced severe neck pains. We have already explained that the appellant was competent to establish his own post-accident pain. Medical testimony is not necessary to establish a causal link between a violent automobile collision and soreness and pain which begin immediately following the accident. Burandt v. Clarke, 274 Or. 521, 547 P.2d 89 (1976).