Opinion ID: 1207560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

Text: The litigation resulted from an accident involving two pick-up trucks. Prior to the accident plaintiff had experienced five cervical injuries. Four cervical vertebral interspaces had been fused  C3-4, C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7. Of the four, we are concerned only with C6-7. There was a non-union of the fusion at this level. Cervical level C2-3 had not been treated prior to the accident. However, the only medical witness (plaintiff's treating physician) was of the opinion: (a) that the C2-3 level had some degree of trauma as a result of the prior injuries and (b) that there was    some deterioration in progress.    at this level. After the accident, the doctor fused the C2-3 level and re-fused the C6-7 level. He was of the opinion that the accident was the cause of the condition that required surgery at these two levels. See Woods v. Brumlop, 71 N.M. 221, 377 P.2d 520 (1962); compare Martin v. Darwin, 77 N.M. 200, 420 P.2d 782 (1966). Defendant contends the trial court awarded damages for aggravation of the pre-existing condition at C2-3 and C6-7. We agree that the finding of damages was, in part, based on aggravation of the pre-existing condition. In testifying as to these levels, the doctor referred to    injuries that recurred by aggravation.    When asked to state the extent of the aggravation, the doctor said: I can't specifically state how much.    The doctor agreed that the condition resulting in surgery at the two levels could have occurred without the accident; that he could not put a date on the injury from his clinical findings alone. His opinion that the accident was the producing cause of the injury was based on the history received from the patient. On the basis of this testimony, defendant contends the extent of the aggravation was not established with reasonable certainty. Because of this asserted failure of proof, he claims the finding of damages is erroneous. Absent such proof, he claims the damage award is based on a mistake of law. Defendant is only liable for the injuries he inflicted on plaintiff. Where the injury is an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, plaintiff must prove the extent of the aggravation because the aggravation is the injury that has been inflicted. Martin v. Darwin, supra. Further, the extent of the aggravation must be established with reasonable certainty. See Woods v. Brumlop, supra. Although the injury (the aggravation) must be reasonably certain, Uncertainty as to the amount of damages one may be entitled to receive will not prevent a recovery,   . Hebenstreit v. Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Ry., 65 N.M. 301, 336 P.2d 1057 (1959). The extent of the aggravation can be established by testimony that the pre-existing condition has been aggravated by a stated percentage amount. Compare Maisel v. Wholesome Dairy, Inc., 79 N.M. 310, 442 P.2d 800 (Ct.App. 1968). This, however, is not the only way the extent of the aggravation can be proved. Comparative testimony can be used to establish the extent of the aggravation. Martin v. Darwin, supra. While the extent of the aggravation in this case is not stated as a percentage extent, there is comparative testimony showing the extent of the aggravation. Plaintiff    was unable to flex or extend the cervical spine so far as he had been able to prior to this accident.    Prior to the accident the doctor had not recommended further surgery, but had told plaintiff that if his pain persisted, and was intolerable, surgery might be necessary. On plaintiff's last visit to the doctor, approximately five weeks before the accident, the acute pain had disappeared although plaintiff continued to have radiating pain from the C6-7 non-union. After the accident    gradually the pain in his neck got more severe.    Fusion of the C2-3 and C6-7 levels was    necessary to interrupt the patient's discomfort. The pre-existing non-union at C6-7 was a non-union of the bone. There was a fibrous union. This type of union is quite workable and allows a person to get by reasonably well if the heavier type of labor is avoided. The doctor testified that plaintiff could do heavy lifting prior to the accident; that he could do    what ever lifting that he wanted to engage in.    Plaintiff had been released to practically unlimited activities. He had a job demonstrating arc welders. Apart from the necessity of moving 150 pound machines, from time to time, the job was light work. Plaintiff experienced no pain as a result of this work. After the accident, plaintiff's symptoms (pain, severe headaches) progressively increased until he was unable to do work of any type. The extent of the injury inflicted by defendant (the aggravation) is established by the foregoing comparative testimony. It is: a decrease of flexion and extension of the cervical spine and an increase in the severity of neck pain which resulted in an inability to work and which necessitated surgery.