Opinion ID: 1097684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Missing Medical Records Merely Served To Confirm Dr. McParland's Opinion Regarding The Cause Of Amputation

Text: The majority complains at length that Bankers Life failed to disclose to Dr. McParland all of the medical records in the case and particularly the emergency room report. This is much ado about nothing. The majority opinion never makes quite clear just what it is that Dr. McParland would have learned from the medical records he did not have prior to trial that would have informed his opinion or would have been arguably inconsistent with his opinion. We can only presume that it is the fact of trauma, for it is true that at the outset Dr. McParland was proceeding on the assumption that there was no trauma. In this connection we note a sampling of the medical records regarding the history of Crenshaw's trauma and to begin with the emergency room report of January 9, 1979, states that Crenshaw driving auto and hit pole with foot on brake. (p. 257) On January 9, 1979, a clinical record states that Crenshaw struck on ball right foot with rebounding clutch. (p. 257) Then on January 14, 1979, a report states that Crenshaw injury to his right ankle in an auto accident. (p. 259) Suffice it to say that these reports are not remarkable for their accuracy. Yet the majority says Dr. McParland should have had them. Dr. McParland was cross-examined about this supposedly significant failure on the part of Bankers Life's claims personnel to furnish him all of the medical records. This exchange is revealing. Q. Well, Doctor, the question I'm trying to get at is that you didn't get the full medical records of Lloyd Crenshaw until about two weeks ago; did you? A. All those medical records ... no, I didn't. But all they do is confirm the facts that the man had no blood going down his leg. It's just confirmation. It didn't add anything to the ... to the disease which was present, and the records are not going to change. What he had, he had. What he's got, he's got ... and he's going to have it. Q. And it's not significant to you at all the fact that Lloyd Crenshaw is sixty-one years of age, is an active person, worked up until the time of his amputation and then sometime thereafter as much as forty hours regularly every week, plays golf, goes dancing ... that doesn't mean a thing. A. No. I did the same operation on a professional dancer. It doesn't make much ... you know, until its completely occluded, it doesn't make that much difference. You still have some blood supply. Q. Doctor, would you agree with this? Is it possible to drop something on your foot to aid in occlusion? Is that possible? A. It's possible if you break some bones and if you have a crushing injury. Q. In other words, it would have to be a most crushing injury then. A. Yes, it would. It's always associated with broken bones. And if you don't have a pulse down there, it doesn't make any difference what you drop on it. There's still no pulse, whether you drop it or don't drop it. The surgeon said there was no blood going down there, and you can't change that. [9] We recognize, of course, that there is evidence in the record that may be seen in conflict with that which Dr. McParland relied upon. The majority notes evidence of a pulse below the amputation site. (Majority opinion, p. 276, footnote 9). Coupled with the description given of the trauma experienced by Crenshaw on January 6, 1979, it also furnishes a basis for concluding that Crenshaw's attending physicians and surgeons may have performed an unnecessary amputation. In any event, for present purposes this merely furnished a basis for cross-examination of Dr. McParland and for argument to the jury that respecting Crenshaw's underlying policy claim, Dr. McParland's opinion should not be credited. Such evidence in no way undercuts the power of Dr. McParland's opinion to furnish Bankers Life with an arguable reason for its refusal to pay Crenshaw's claim. The point is this. When Dr. McParland testified at trial, he had reviewed all of the medical records. His opinion remained what he had stated before: that the amputation was caused by the preexisting arteriosclerotic condition in Crenshaw's right foot. There is nothing in the fact of trauma, whether that consists of Crenshaw's dropping an alternator on his big toe or the variations thereof in the records recited above, which is necessarily inconsistent with what Dr. McParland stated. For this reason it is likewise of no great significance that these records were not furnished to Dr. McParland ab initio. While it would obviously be the better practice to furnish the physician who has to give an opinion in such matters all medical reports, one cannot on these facts say that this failure had anything to do with the opinion Dr. McParland originally reached or subsequently delivered by trial. What we have in a nutshell is an arguably sloppy practice which is of no practical or legal consequence here.