Kayman v. Rasheed
31 N.E.3d 427
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- January 30, 2009 rear-end collision; defendant Rasheed admitted negligence but disputed causation/extent of plaintiff Kayman’s injuries. Kayman sought damages for pain, ongoing treatment, and related losses.
- Kayman treated in ER same day, saw primary Dr. Conroy in February 2009, received orthopedic care and pain management from Hinsdale Orthopedics (including physical therapy, TENS, trigger‑point injections) through 2012; treating doctor Dr. Kirincic testified the accident more likely than not caused/aggravated a degenerative cervical condition and that symptoms are likely chronic.
- Pretrial discovery issues: trial was continued for plaintiff to complete discovery; plaintiff late-disclosed a day‑in‑the‑life video (two weeks before trial).
- At trial court excluded several items from being published to the jury during closing (selected medical records and ER notes) citing risk of confusion where records contained medical terminology not explained by testimony. Court allowed some targeted record references by defendant but disallowed plaintiff’s use of entire pages.
- Court permitted impeachment use of Dr. Conroy’s deposition referencing plaintiff’s 2005–06 neck/back complaints because plaintiff’s pretrial deposition denied prior problems ("pick your poison" ruling). Court excluded a vehicle‑damage photograph as substantive proof of injury (and found no trial testimony to open door for impeachment). Day‑in‑the‑life video was barred as untimely. Wage‑loss claim for time spent at therapy was barred because Kayman admitted no lost pay.
- Jury awarded $13,244 (mostly past medical expenses), $900 past pain and suffering, and no future damages. Trial court denied new trial; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff could publish admitted medical records to jury in closing | Kayman: records were business records and should be usable in closing to support causation | Rasheed: records contained medical detail never explained to jury; publishing would confuse and prejudice | Court: exclusion of publishing records in closing was within discretion to avoid jury confusion where medical terminology lacked testimonial explanation |
| Admissibility of prior 2005–06 neck/back complaints (Dr. Conroy depo) | Kayman: Voykin requires expert foundation to show relevance of prior injuries; evidence should be barred | Rasheed: prior complaints impeach Kayman’s deposition denial and are relevant to causation | Court: admissible for impeachment if plaintiff denies prior complaints; substantive admission would require expert, but impeachment is independent basis |
| Admission of photograph of defendant's vehicle damage | Kayman: photo shows severity and can corroborate injury and impeach defendant’s low‑speed claim | Rasheed: photo cannot prove injury without expert; prejudicial | Court: photo inadmissible as substantive proof of plaintiff’s injuries without expert; impeachment use not available because defendant did not testify minimizing impact at trial |
| Day‑in‑the‑life video disclosed two weeks before trial | Kayman: demonstrative evidence; late disclosure not prejudicial; Donnellan supports late admission | Rasheed: untimely and prejudicial given prior continuance for plaintiff’s discovery failures | Court: exclusion was within discretion given prior continuance for plaintiff’s discovery lapses; not an abuse of discretion |
| Lost‑wages for time at physical therapy | Kayman: suffered loss of time even if salaried | Rasheed: no compensable wage loss because plaintiff admitted no lost pay or benefits | Court: claim properly barred—no proven monetary loss or benefits forfeited, so damages speculative |
| Verdict challenged as against manifest weight for refusing future damages | Kayman: Dr. Kirincic testified plaintiff likely needs ongoing care and has chronic pain | Rasheed: jury entitled to disbelieve expert; testimony equivocal and no cost estimates presented | Court: jury may discredit expert; absence of specific future cost proof justified zero future damages; verdict not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer, 192 Ill. 2d 49 (2000) (prior injuries generally require expert to show relevance unless laypersons can appraise relationship)
- Felber v. London, 346 Ill. App. 3d 188 (2004) (treating physician testimony about effects of collision on preexisting condition can obviate need for additional expert to admit prior‑injury evidence)
- Gill v. Foster, 157 Ill. 2d 304 (1993) (relevant evidence may be excluded if probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudice or jury confusion)
- Donnellan v. First Student, Inc., 383 Ill. App. 3d 1040 (2008) (day‑in‑the‑life videos are demonstrative; untimely disclosure may be nonprejudicial depending on circumstances)