Court Opinion

ID: 9393105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 14:10:56.486152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.886260
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges Humphreys, Malveaux and Fulton
UNPUBLISHED

              VINCENT COLBERT
                                                                               MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.      Record No. 1458-22-4                                         PER CURIAM
                                                                                   MAY 9, 2023
              MARTRELL SPAIGHT

                                     FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
                                                Richard E. Gardiner, Judge

                               (D. Cory Bilton; Bilton Law Firm, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant.

                               (Heather K. Bardot; Kara A. Schmidt; McGavin, Boyce, Bardot,
                               Thorsen & Katz, PC, on brief), for appellee.

                      Vincent Colbert filed a personal injury suit in Fairfax County Circuit Court against Martrell

              Spaight stemming from a motor vehicle collision on October 26, 2015. After a three-day trial, the

              jury returned a verdict in favor of Spaight, and the circuit court entered judgment reflecting that

              verdict. On appeal, Colbert argues that the circuit court committed reversible error in refusing to

              admit his medical bills into evidence. After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel

              unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.”

              Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a). We find that the record before us is insufficient to allow us

              to consider the assignment of error, and therefore affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

                                                        BACKGROUND

                      Colbert filed a complaint alleging that on October 26, 2015, Spaight negligently rear-ended

              his vehicle and injured Colbert in the accident. In his answer, Spaight denied the allegations of

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413.
Colbert’s complaint; Spaight asserted that he was not negligent and did not cause the accident or, in

the alternative, that Colbert was contributorily negligent in the collision.

        On the second day of the jury trial, Dr. John Peters testified on behalf of Colbert as an expert

neurologist. Dr. Peters testified that he first met Colbert in October of 2021, six years after the

collision. He reviewed Colbert’s prior medical records, examined Colbert, and noted Colbert’s

statements about the accident and his symptoms. Dr. Peters concluded that, based on that evidence,

Colbert suffered a concussion in the collision. Dr. Peters then testified that Colbert’s treatment after

the collision was reasonable and related to his injury from the collision. On cross-examination,

when asked which of Colbert’s specific visits to medical treatment providers that he would relate to

the collision, Dr. Peters testified that he “would have to go back and look at the records specifically”

and that “it’s been a while since [he] looked at the records.” Dr. Peters then went on to relate two of

Colbert’s medical visits to the collision, but he was unable to connect any of the other treatment

dates to the accident without “look[ing] at that particular encounter note.” When defense counsel

stated that some of the treatments in the records indicated that they were specifically for injuries

sustained in a subsequent vehicle collision in 2017, Dr. Peters replied, “[I]f you’re telling me that,

I’ll accept that.” Ultimately, when asked if he “kn[ew] what [Colbert] was seen for on those dates,”

Dr. Peters testified that he “would have to go back and look.”

        Colbert then moved to introduce medical bills into evidence; Spaight objected, asserting that

under the principles of McMunn v. Tatum, 237 Va. 558 (1989), Colbert failed to lay proper

foundation that the bills were related to the collision. After hearing argument, the circuit court

sustained the objection, and excluded the medical bills.

        At the close of trial, the circuit court instructed the jury to determine: (1) if Spaight was

negligent; (2) if such negligence was the proximate cause of an injury to Colbert; and (3) if

                                                   -2-
Spaight’s negligence proximately caused an injury, the amount of damages Colbert was entitled to

recover. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Spaight, awarding no damages to Colbert.

                                              ANALYSIS

        Colbert argues that he laid sufficient foundation for introducing the medical bills for the

treatment he claimed related to the collision and that in excluding that evidence the circuit court

committed reversible error. We cannot reach the merit of Colbert’s assignment of error because he

failed to provide this Court with a sufficient record to do so.

        “[O]n appeal the judgment of the lower court is presumed to be correct and the burden is

on the appellant to present to us a sufficient record from which we can determine whether the

lower court has erred in the respect complained of.” Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630,

635 (1993) (quoting Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632 (1961)). “If the appellant fails to do this,

the judgment will be affirmed.” Id. (quoting Justis, 202 Va. at 632).

        “In a civil case, the erroneous exclusion of evidence is reversible error when the record

fails to show plainly that the excluded evidence could not have affected the verdict. Thus,

[appellate courts] consider the potential effect of the excluded evidence in light of all the

evidence that was presented to the jury.” Barkley v. Wallace, 267 Va. 369, 374 (2004)

(emphasis added) (citing Pace v. Richmond, 231 Va. 216, 226 (1986)); see also Commonwealth

v. Proffitt, 292 Va. 626, 642 (2016).

        In his appeal, Colbert filed only two partial transcripts from his three-day jury trial. The

transcript extracts which Colbert filed reflect the testimony of Dr. Peters, Colbert’s argument on the

admissibility of the medical bills, the admission of some of Spaight’s exhibits, the pretrial

depositions of other medical experts, and the final instructions to the jury with closing arguments.

Colbert filed no transcripts, or written statements of fact in lieu of transcripts, containing the other

evidence that the parties introduced at trial. Further, Colbert never proffered the medical bills to the

                                                   -3-
court after they were excluded and, therefore, they are not part of the record. “In Virginia, when

‘[evidence] is rejected before it is delivered, an appellate court has no basis for adjudication unless

the record reflects a proper proffer.’” Ray v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 647, 649 (2010) (quoting

Whittaker v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 966, 968 (1977)). “It is well established that a party who

wishes to challenge the trial court’s exclusion of evidence on appeal must provide a proffer of that

evidence that is adequate to permit this Court to determine whether the lower court erred.” Smith v.

Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 523, 541 (2020). To be sufficient, a proffer must allow us to examine

both the admissibility of the proposed evidence and whether, even if admissible, its exclusion

prejudiced the proffering party. Molina v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 338, 368 (2006). By

neglecting to include a full trial transcript or proffer the medical bills to the trial court, Colbert thus

failed to provide this Court with a sufficient record to determine if the circuit court committed

reversible error in excluding the medical bills in light of all the other evidence the parties

introduced. See Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii) (If the appellant fails to “ensure that the record contains

transcripts or a written statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any

assignments of error affected by such omission shall not be considered.”). We therefore cannot

consider Colbert’s assignment of error. 1

        1
          We note that this was a case of contested liability, in which the jury had to determine first
if Spaight was negligent in this collision, and if so, whether that negligence proximately caused an
injury to Colbert. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Spaight, suggesting a finding that Spaight
was not negligent, or a conclusion that his negligence did not proximately cause an injury to
Colbert. Medical bills are relevant in a personal injury suit, but only to show damages, both
liquidated and unliquidated. See Barkley, 267 Va. at 373 (holding that medical bills are relevant
evidence of pain and suffering, and excluding that evidence was reversible error). Thus, even if the
circuit court erred in excluding the medical bills, in light of the jury’s verdict in favor of Spaight,
any conceivable error in the court’s ruling was harmless. See Code § 8.01-678 (“When it plainly
appears from the record and the evidence given at the trial that the parties have had a fair trial on the
merits and substantial justice has been reached, no judgment shall be arrested or reversed . . . for any
error committed on the trial.”).
                                                   -4-
                                 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

                                                                          Affirmed.

                                       -5-