Veronica Valdivia, Res. v. Dalynne Singleton, Admin. Of The Estate Of Elmer K. Turngren, Pets., 74719-3

On January 8, 2014, Veronica Valdivia and Elmer Turngren were in a car collision; Turngren admitted liability for causing the crash but contested the extent and necessity of Valdivia’s injuries and treatment.
Valdivia sought chiropractic care for neck and back pain and sued for medical expenses; she submitted medical bills totaling $8,700 and declarations from Drs. Trevor Nabholz and Ryan Coogan diagnosing injury and supporting treatment.
Turngren produced a CR 35 examiner, Dr. Austin McMillin, who reviewed records and opined that the diagnoses and much of the chiropractic care were unnecessary, inappropriate, or unsupported by clinical evidence.
The trial court granted Valdivia partial summary judgment, directing the jury would be instructed that she was entitled to $8,700 for past medical expenses.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, viewed evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (Turngren), and considered whether conflicting expert opinions created genuine issues for the jury.

Issue	Valdivia's Argument	Turngren's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment can establish entitlement to $8,700 in past medical expenses	Valdivia argued her medical bills and treating doctors’ declarations entitled her as a matter of law to recovery of the billed amount	Turngren argued competing expert testimony created genuine disputes about diagnosis and necessity of treatment, precluding summary judgment	Reversed: genuine factual disputes exist; summary judgment on damages improper
Whether a treating expert’s affidavits alone sufficiently establish necessity of care at summary judgment	Valdivia relied on treating chiropractors’ declarations and bills to prove necessity and amount	Turngren showed the CR 35 expert directly contradicted treating doctors, challenging diagnosis, necessity, and appropriateness of care	Treating doctors’ affidavits do not defeat a contrary, competent expert; conflicting expert opinions raise triable issues
Whether disputed medical necessity can be resolved as a matter of law when experts conflict	Valdivia contended evidence of bills and treatment supports a single reasonable conclusion	Turngren contended reasonable minds could differ given critique of diagnosis, preexisting conditions, and treatment appropriateness	Court: when evidence conflicts on injury/treatment, jury must resolve credibility and weight of experts

Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216 (discusses burdens on moving and nonmoving parties on summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment framework and burden-shifting)
Owen v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 153 Wn.2d 780 (when questions of fact can be determined as a matter of law)
Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (standard of review for summary judgment; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Herriman v. May, 142 Wn. App. 226 (conflicting medical evidence on injuries/treatment is for the jury)
Bowers v. Marzano, 170 Wn. App. 498 (expert affidavit can create a genuine issue but must be more than speculation)
Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768 (discusses circumstances when factual questions may be decided as a matter of law)