Court Opinion

ID: 9738185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:44:26.129195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.096263
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: The trial court’s ruling as to the evidence deposition testimony of Dr. Lack did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Dr. Lack, being questioned by plaintiffs attorney, testified his first examination found “painful motion of her left hip,” “pain with motion or palpation over the right wrist and distal forearm,” “forehead lacerations and other superficial lacerations and cuts at various places.” He then reviewed his treatment with respect to forehead lacerations, the right arm fracture and the hip, pelvic fracture. When she was discharged from the hospital, the only restrictions mentioned were that she be on crutches. On March 31, 1993, X rays were taken of the hip and wrist. On April 21, 1993, the plaintiff was seen again, the cast was removed from the right arm and again X rays were taken of the left hip and right arm, showing no displacement of the hip and evidence of healing. Any complaint as to the knees was first made at an appointment on May 19, 1993. Dr. Lack said there was no record to document any prior complaint as to the knees and he did not recall any laceration on the left knee. An MRI performed May 21, 1993, “had not demonstrated any significant abnormality on the left knee.” At a subsequent appointment on October 11, 1993, Dr. Lack’s testimony concerned only the left hip and an X ray and MRI with respect to the left hip. The testimony of Dr. Lack shows the first concern for the knees was at an appointment September 29, 1994, more than 18 months after the accident of March 8, 1993. As the majority states, the knee condition was diagnosed as chondromalacia, a degenerative condition of the knee. A review of the direct examination and the cross-examination, including that testimony set forth by the majority, makes it clear the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion in its ruling. Although as trial judge I would have overruled the defendant’s objection, on review I would affirm the trial court.