Friday, December 1, 2017

Medical bills improperly admitted as outside scope of pleadings

Schieffer v Tomas DeCleene, ED 105243
Nov. 14, 2017


The court of appeals reversed a finding based on error alleged by the plaintiff in which he judge allowed introduction of the plaintiff's medical bills in a negligence claim involving an auto accident when the plaintiff originally plead the bills as special damages and then later deleted any claim for medical bills in his second amended petition filed on the morning of the trial.

The court found the admission of the bills was outside of the scope of the pleading and the trial judge abused his discretion to admit such evidence in finding his expenses of $14,743.75 was admissible.  The trial court has no discretion to admit evidence of bills  when it is outside the scope of the pleadings. A claim for medical bills must be stated in the petition as special damages. 

The deletion of the evidence eliminated the concern that a jury would consider what his insurance company paid (or repriced)  for the treatment.  Plaintiff alleged general damages including pain and suffering and the cost of a future surgery.  Plaintiff was offered surgery twice but cancelled it because of concerns about surgical risks. 

The court noted a party cannot implicitly consent to trying an issue outside the pleadings unless the consented to evidence would have been irrelevant to the issues that were contained within the pleadings.

The judge found the bills admissible because they "shed probative legal and factual evidence" whether the treatment was for the alleged injuries or in part due to prior impairments related to a prior disc herniation and auto accident.  The judge found under 490.715.5  any party may introduce evidence whether treatment rendered was reasonable, necessary and a proximate cause.  The defense attempted to introduce the records to differentiate the costs. The court of appeals did not conclude it was necessary to address the second point of alleged error.

The plaintiff had sought damages of $300,000. The jury returned a verdict of $25,000.