Deck v. Teasley
322 S.W.3d 536
| Mo. | 2010Background
- Deck sustained injuries in a rear-end collision caused by Teasley in May 2003.
- Deck incurred medical treatment totaling $27,991.30; payments after adjustments were $9,904.28, largely paid by Medicare.
- Deck sued Teasley for past medical expenses in a negligence action seeking damages.
- Teasley moved to determine the value of medical treatment under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.715.5, arguing value equals amounts paid.
- The 2005 amendment to § 490.715.5 created a rebuttable presumption that the amount paid represents value; other evidence may be considered outside the jury.
- The trial court upheld the presumption and limited damages evidence to amounts paid or owed, excluding billed amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presumption rebuttal and value evidence | Deck rebutted by evidence that billed amounts reflect value. | Teasley contends presumption stands and limits value to amounts paid. | Presumption rebutted; new trial on damages required. |
| Prejudice from excluding billed amounts | Excluding total medical bills deprived the jury of proper damages. | Policy concerns justify limiting evidence to paid amounts. | Exclusion prejudicial; remand for new damages trial. |
| Future medical costs testimony | Dr. Bennoch’s future surgery costs are admissible to show extent of present injuries. | Costs are speculative and not reasonably certain. | Not decided on the merits; remand guided by Swartz v. Gale Webb Transp. Co. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reiners v. Terminal Warehouses of St. Joseph, Inc., 371 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.1963) (presumption; burden to rebut with substantial evidence)
- Duff v. St. Louis Mining & Milling Corp., 255 S.W.2d 792 (Mo.1953) (presumption disappears when rebutted; evidence weighed)
- Accomac Realty Co. v. City of St. Louis, 152 S.W.2d 100 (Mo.1941) (prejudice assessment in damages determinations)
- Newton v. Ford Motor Co., 282 S.W.3d 825 (Mo. banc 2009) ( Rule 84.13(b) prejudice standard for reversible error)
- Swartz v. Gale Webb Transp. Co., 215 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. banc 2007) (admissibility of future medical-cost testimony to extent of present injuries)
- Breeding v. Dodson Trailer Repair, Inc., 679 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. banc 1984) (future surgery cost testimony admissible despite contingency)