Opinion ID: 1597261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subjective Complaints of Pain to Establish a Permanent Injury

Text: With regard to the first question, the statute requires that the plaintiff establish the existence of a physical injury and prove that this injury is permanent. Both elements must be proven within a reasonable degree of medical probability. We find that the statute does not limit the evidence to objective findings to establish the existence or permanency of a physical injury. Unlike an obvious injury, a soft tissue injury may lack objective signs of physical injury, and the subjective complaint of the patient may be the principal evidence available to prove its existence. However, the statute does provide a check on the evidence with its requirement that the existence and permanency of the injury be established within a reasonable degree of medical probability. By the terms of the statute, a mere recitation of the plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain is insufficient to prove a permanent injury  the plaintiff must also present expert medical testimony to establish the existence and permanency of the alleged injury. In the instant case, Long provided such testimony when a medical expert testified concerning Long's subjective complaints of pain and stated that the pain was permanent. There was also conflicting medical evidence presented to the jury, as well as direct evidence that the pain was the result of previous injuries. We conclude that subjective evidence of pain may properly be used to prove the existence and permanency of an injury provided that expert medical testimony is presented to establish its existence and permanency within a reasonable degree of medical probability.