Sapinder Singh v. Larry Fowler Trucking, Inc.
390 S.W.3d 280
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- In the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Sapinder Singh appeals the trial court’s partial grant of a motion in limine excluding portions of Dr. Michael Jaffin’s deposition testimony about future surgery for Singh and the cost thereof.
- The accident occurred September 11, 2005 on I-40 in Henderson County when Jeffrey Williams, driving for Larry Fowler Trucking, rear-ended Singh after Singh slowed for traffic.
- Singh sought medical treatment beginning with a chiropractor, then an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed worsening back conditions and referred Singh to a neurosurgeon; Singh could not obtain surgery due to lack of medical insurance and could not work.
- Singh sued Fowler Trucking and Williams for negligence on June 8, 2009. Fowler Trucking moved in limine on July 13, 2011 to exclude Dr. Jaffin’s testimony about future surgery and costs; the court granted part of the motion and later issued a December 16, 2011 order limiting testimony on future surgery and costs.
- The jury found Singh liable for damages, but on appeal Singh challenged the exclusion of Dr. Jaffin’s testimony; the court affirmed, holding the testimony as to future surgeries and costs was speculative and not admissible under Tenn. Rule of Evidence 702/703 and the reasonable certainty standard for future medical expenses.
- Costs of this appeal were assessed against Singh and his surety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Jaffin’s testimony about future surgery and costs. | Singh contends the testimony would assist the jury in evaluating future medical expenses. | Fowler Trucking argued the testimony was speculative and not based on a reliable medical certainty. | No abuse of discretion; exclusion affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gobee v. Dimick, 213 S.W.3d 865 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (speculative expert testimony not helpful to trier of fact)
- McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997) (expert testimony must be based on reliable data and not mere speculation)
- Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010) (standard for evaluating discretionary evidentiary rulings)
- Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for reviewing discretionary decisions in family law context)
- State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for trial court rulings)