Flores v. Gutierrez
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1492
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dec. 6, 2007, Gutierrez rear-ended Flores at an intersection in Hammond, Indiana; Flores pursued medical care for back/neck pain thereafter.
- Flores had preexisting arthritis, scoliosis, and degenerative disc disease; some injuries were attributed to prior conditions.
- MRI on Dec. 14, 2007 linked cervical spine muscle spasm to osteoarthritis/disc disease, while an MRI of the lumbar spine showed preexisting disc disease.
- Flores fell at work in January 2010, seeking medical care and filing a workers’ compensation claim related to that fall.
- At trial, the court found Gutierrez liable but the jury awarded zero damages; Flores moved to correct error and the trial court denied.
- Evidence issues included admission of a post-accident vehicle photograph (Exhibit D), references to the workers’ compensation claim, and exclusion of certain medical records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages award inconsistency with evidence | Flores asserts zero damages were improper given medical testimony. | Gutierrez contends damages could be zero despite liability. | Zero damages within the evidence supports the verdict. |
| Admissibility of Exhibit D (vehicle photograph) | Exhibit D is irrelevant or prejudicial to bodily injury determination. | Exhibit D is relevant to accident impact and injury causation. | Exhibit D admissible; not unduly prejudicial. |
| References to January 2010 fall and worker’s compensation | Fall and WC claim are irrelevant to causation of neck/back pain. | Prior accident evidence may be probative to causation in cross-examination. | References to the January 2010 fall were not abuse of discretion. |
| Exclusion of medical records (Exhibits 3, 4, 6, 7) | Exclusions unfairly limited medical proof from treating physicians. | Records lacked proper foundation/expert qualification. | No abuse of discretion; exclusion proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind.2001) (great deference to jury damages; cannot invade jury’s fact-finding)
- Annee v. State, 256 Ind. 686, 271 N.E.2d 711 (Ind.1966) (limits on reversing jury verdicts; need clearly erroneous verdict)
- Beaman v. Hedrick, 146 Ind.App. 404, 255 N.E.2d 828 (Ind.App.1970) (medical testimony cannot contradict lay conclusions on causation where common knowledge applies)
- Ferdinand Furniture Co. v. Anderson, 399 N.E.2d 799 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (cross-examination can undermine expert conclusions; credibility issues matter)
- Wilkinson v. Swafford, 811 N.E.2d 374 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (medical opinions in records require expert foundation and cross-examination)
- Estate of Dyer v. Doyle, 870 N.E.2d 573 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (expert opinion admissibility; business/medical opinions need foundation)
- Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (burden proof; admissibility of prior accidents to show causation)
- Buhring v. Tavoletti, 905 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (causation proofs; expert necessity considerations)
- Rondinelli v. Bowden, 155 Ind.App. 582, 293 N.E.2d 812 (Ind.App.1973) (admissibility of prior accidents to establish causal nexus)