539 S.W.3d 798
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Nov. 17, 2011, DeCleene rear-ended Schieffer; Schieffer thereafter alleged worsening neck, shoulder, and back pain despite treatment.
- Schieffer sued for negligence and his wife added a loss-of-consortium claim; the original petition pleaded $28,760.74 in medical expenses.
- On the morning of trial Schieffer filed (and the court allowed) a second amended petition deleting the past-medical-expenses claim, leaving only general damages and future medical costs.
- Defendant sought to introduce Schieffer’s past medical bills (~$14,743.75) to show which treatments related to the preexisting back injury versus the post-2011 neck injury; trial court admitted the bills under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.715.5(1).
- Defense counsel told the jury the bills were reasonable, necessary, proximately caused by DeCleene; later argued much of the bills were for preexisting back care and urged a $25,000 verdict.
- Jury returned $25,000; Schieffer moved for a new trial arguing (1) admission of the bills was improper because he had deleted the claim for past medical expenses, and (2) defendant improperly argued portions of the bills were not proximately caused despite the court’s conditional admission; the court denied the motion and Schieffer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of plaintiff’s past medical bills was proper after plaintiff deleted a claim for past medical expenses | Schieffer: deletion abandoned that claim, so bills are outside the pleadings and inadmissible as special damages | DeCleene: § 490.715.5(1) permits any party to introduce medical-treatment-value evidence; alternatively, implied consent or rebuttal relevance | Reversed: bills were special damages removed from the pleadings; court abused discretion admitting them; new trial warranted |
| Whether § 490.715.5(1) authorized admission of the bills despite pleading deletion | Schieffer: statute does not override pleading limits and collateral-source context matters | DeCleene: statute’s plain language allows any party to introduce such evidence | Held: statute interpreted in collateral-source context; it did not authorize admission here, so defendant’s statutory argument fails |
| Whether bills were admissible as rebuttal of Schieffer’s claimed mental anguish | Schieffer: his mental anguish related to pain/future surgery, not financial stress from bills | DeCleene: bills rebut presumed claims of financial/mental distress from treatment costs | Held: no testimony raised financial-stress anguish; bills were not proper rebuttal evidence |
| Whether plaintiff impliedly consented to try past-medical-expense issue | Schieffer: introduced treatment history relevant to pain and suffering, not costs | DeCleene: by introducing treatment testimony without objection, plaintiff tried the issue | Held: testimony about treatment was relevant to pleaded general damages and did not imply consent to litigate costs; no implied consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Marmaduke v. CBL & Associates Management, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (standard: abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings)
- Carlson v. Saint Louis University, 495 S.W.3d 777 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Gallagher v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 238 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (deference to trial court within discretion)
- Lampe v. Taylor, 338 S.W.3d 350 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- International Div., Inc. v. DeWitt & Associates, Inc., 425 S.W.3d 225 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014) (trial limited to issues in pleadings; objection requires conformity to pleadings)
- Moore v. Parks, 458 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. 1970) (medical expenses are special damages and must be pleaded)
- Layton v. Palmer, 309 S.W.2d 561 (Mo. 1958) (same: medical/surgical costs are special damages requiring pleading)
- Marshall v. Brown, 608 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980) (distinguishing testimony of treatment scope from pleading of expenses)