BENNINGFIELD v. FISCHER-COLUMBO, 2021 OK CIV APP 44

On May 20, 2015 Appellee rear‑ended Appellant's stopped vehicle; Appellee later admitted liability and the trial court entered partial summary judgment on liability.
Appellant waited ~5 months after the collision to seek care, saw a chiropractor, then an orthopedist; early MRIs (months after accident) showed no acute traumatic findings (lumbar unremarkable; shoulder tendinopathy; mild non‑traumatic cervical bulge).
Appellant underwent left shoulder surgery on January 18, 2019 after a later specialist review identified partial rotator cuff and biceps tendon tears.
Appellee's IME physician, Dr. Craven, testified in a videotaped deposition that, to a reasonable medical certainty, Appellant sustained cervical, lumbar, and shoulder strains from the crash—but he clarified that opinion was based solely on Appellant's subjective history and there were no objective findings linking the accident to ongoing injuries.
At trial both parties' medical experts testified; the jury returned a defense verdict. Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court erred by (1) denying a directed verdict in her favor on causation and (2) admitting portions of Dr. Craven's testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying directed verdict on causation	Benningfield argued causation was established because Appellee's own expert opined Appellant sustained cervical, lumbar, and shoulder strains from the accident, so all elements were undisputed	Fischer‑Columbo pointed out the expert relied solely on subjective history and there were objective gaps (treatment delay, inconsistent imaging, long delay to surgery) making causation a jury question	Denial affirmed — expert’s causation opinion was based on subjective history and credibility/weight are for the jury, so factual disputes precluded directed verdict
Whether trial court abused discretion by admitting portions of Appellee's expert testimony (including post‑IME developments)	Benningfield argued admitting testimony about evidence not available at IME prejudiced her and amounted to trial by ambush	Fischer‑Columbo and trial court noted Dr. Craven was disclosed as defense expert and the admission did not produce demonstrated prejudicial error	Admission affirmed — no clear abuse of discretion and Appellant failed to show prejudicial error under the applicable test

Computer Publications, Inc. v. Welton, 49 P.3d 732 (Okla. 2002) (standard for reviewing denial of directed verdict)
Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003) (trial court review of expert testimony admissibility; expert reliance on patient history is permissible)
Kahre v. Kahre, 916 P.2d 1355 (Okla. 1995) (appellate standard: reversible error requires affirmative showing of prejudicial error for evidentiary rulings)
West v. Cajun's Wharf, 770 P.2d 558 (Okla. 1988) (tripartite test for new trial where witness identity/location withheld causing prejudice)
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Wise, 251 P.2d 1058 (Okla. 1952) (juries may accept or reject expert testimony; expert testimony not binding)
Holley v. Shephard, 744 P.2d 945 (Okla. 1987) (jury is exclusive judge of witness credibility)
McKellips v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., 741 P.2d 467 (Okla. 1987) (elements required to recover in personal injury negligence action)