WPC 7# UN %k 0cqU<w@4Pd 0s 0L AQf 0D 0N 0JQ 0T 0^ 0hM 0r 0|' 0 0) 1u 0d. B  0Du 0@ 0D D/= Bl D3 U> B) DC# AMfU*]a:3v~vLHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$XaBXXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman ӀӀ Ӏ!Ӏ"Ӏ#Ӏ$Ӏ%Ӏ&Ӏ2n~<$$4P3|x2(W(3$ cW!XSXXX   `   0  > $Small Circle0  !"%C<< C($$   1  >$"Small Circle"0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    (#$  0  ''' dxdP Pd'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd "/C << G<  9p`(Arial S !  #d#-      !"  11   YYY FILED1X June9,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.1AppellateCourtClerk  W !#d#-       $       ݀PhotographsrevealthattherearofHudsonscarwasonlyslightlydamaged,whereasthefrontofShorterspickuptruckwasnotdamagedatall. ) !#d#-       $       ݀TherewasadisputeattrialconcerningwhethertheclinictriplechargedHudsonforcertaintreatments.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva ! . -      \RA'\7XXdd7    @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATJACKSON  ______________________________________________  R02/A1-j|su` . `@RSYLVIAHUDSON,  PlaintiffAppellee,       ShelbyCircuitNo.78879T.D.Vs.       C.A.No.02A019709CV00232 DAVESHORTER,JR.,  DefendantAppellant.____________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY@ THEHONORABLEJAMESE.SWEARENGEN,JUDGE@ JerryStokesofMemphis@ ForPlaintiffAppellee@ C.J.Barnett,McNabb,Holley&WaldropPLLCofMemphis@ ForDefendantAppellant@ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED @ Opinionfiled:        W.FRANKCRAWFORD,        PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEDAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE    ӛ Thisisanautomobilepersonalinjurycase.Thedefendant,DavidShorter,Jr.,appealsfromthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinabenchtrialawardingplaintiff,SylviaHudson,$9,000.00damages.Shortersresponsibilityfortheaccidentwasstipulated,andthetrialconcernedonlytheissueofdamages. Althoughthecollisioncausedrelativelyminordamagetothepartiesvehicles, 3   ׀HudsonwastakentotheemergencyroomofMethodistHospitalinMemphisimmediatelyaftertheaccident.Shewasexaminedandreleasedwithoutbeingreferredtoanyhealthcareprofessional.HudsonadmittedthatshortlythereaftersheretainedanattorneyandwasreferredtoBellevueClinicfortreatmentofallegedlowerbackandneckpain.Hudsonvisitedthecliniconfourteenoccasions,andhertreatmentincludedtheapplicationofhotandcoldpacksandtheadministrationofultrasoundtoherlowerbackandneck.BellevueClinicsbilltotaled$2,655.00forthesevisits. 4   ׀Subsequently,BellevueClinicreferredHudsontoDr.PaulWilliams,anorthopedist.Dr.WilliamsadministeredsimilarconservativetreatmenttoHudsonduringthecourseofninevisitsandchargedheratotalof$528.00. HudsonsuedShorterfordamagesingeneralsessionscourt,andShorterappealedtocircuitcourtforatrial denovo .Thecasewastriedinthecircuitcourtbyajudgewithoutajury,andthebillsformedicalexpenseswereintroducedintoevidencebystipulation.HudsonalsopresentedthedepositiontestimonyofDr.WilliamsconcerninghiscareandtreatmentandalsoasproofthatthemajormedicalbillfromBellevueClinicwasreasonableandnecessary.Thetrialcourtconsideredthedepositiontestimonyinreachingitsdecisiontoawardplaintiff$9,000.00asdamages.Shorterhasappealedandpresentsinhisbrieftheseissuesforreview:8 8 Underthesurroundingcircumstances,weretheappelleesphysiciansopinionstoospeculative,andnotwithinasufficientdegreeofcertaintytobeadmittedintoevidenceattrial:8 8 a.Withrespecttohistreatmentoftheappellee?And/Or8 8 b.Withrespecttothetreatmentandbillallegedlyincurredbytheappelleewithanotherphysician?Ӝ Inhisdeposition,Dr.WilliamstestifiedaboutHudsonsinitialvisitwithhimasfollows:Ӝ8 8 Q. Whatwereyourfindingsafterthisphysicalexamination?8 8 A. Myopinionwasthatshesustainedastrainandsprainofageneralizednatureofherlumbarspine.8 8 Q. Wasthatconsistent,Doctor,withanautomobileaccidentthatshegaveahistoryof?8 8 A. Itcouldandmightbecausedbyanautomobileaccident.ӜWhenaskedwhetherhistreatmentrenderedtoHudsonduringthecourseofhervisitswas necessary,Dr.Williamsstated:Ӝ8 8 Shemighthavelivedwithoutthetreatment,butIfeelthatthetreatmentwasadvisedbasedonhermedicalcomplaints.AnditwasmythoughtthatthistreatmentwaswhatIwouldliketohavedonetomeifIhadthesamecomplaint.ӜDr.Williams,afterreviewingHudsonsotherrelatedmedicalbillsthatitemizedthetreatmentsbyBellevueClinic,testified:Ӝ8 8 Q. DoyouhaveanopinionwhetherthetreatmentthatMs.Hudsonreceivedwasnecessary?8 8 A. Again,theseweretreatmentstorelievehercomplaints.Shecouldlivewithoutthetreatmentsbutthesewouldshortenthecourseofherthetreatmentsrenderedherewouldshortenthecourseofhercomplaintsandmakehermorecomfortablewhileshewasgettingbetter.8 8 Q. Wouldthosetreatmentsbenecessarytorelievethosecomplaints?8 8 A. Thesetreatmentswouldbehelpfulinrelievingthecomplaints.8 8 Q. Didyouseethebillsthatwerechargedasaresultofthosetreatments?8 8 A. Yes,sir.8 8 Q. Doyouthinktheyrefairandreasonableandinkeepingwithwhatotherphysicianswhotreatsofttissueinjurieswouldchargeinthiscommunity?8 8 A. Theyappeartobefairandreasonableandwithinnormallimitsforsimilargroupsthatrenderthistypeofphysicaltherapytreatment.Attheconclusionofhisdeposition,Dr.Williamswasasked:8 8 Q. Doctor,allthatyouvetestifiedtoyouvetestifiedtowithinareasonabledegreeofmedicalcertainty?8 8 A. Yes,sir.8 8 Q. AndthetreatmentyourenderedMs.Hudson,wasthatconsistentwiththecomplaintsthatshegaveinherhistorystemmingfromamotorvehicleaccident?8 8 A. Yes,sir. ShorterassertsthatthetrialcourterredinadmittingDr.Williamssmedicalopinionssincetheyarenotwithintherequisitedegreeofcertainty.InadditiontorespondingthatDr.Williamssopinionswerewithinasufficientdegreeofcertainty,HudsoncountersthatShorterfailedtomakeatimelyobjectionattrial.̜ Thetrialcourtisaffordedwidediscretionintheadmissionorrejectionofevidence,andthetrialcourt'sactionwillbereversedonappealonlywhenthereisashowingofanabuseofdiscretion. Otisv.CambridgeMut.FireIns.Co. ,850S.W.2d439,442(Tenn.1992); Davisv.Hall ,920S.W.2d213,217(Tenn.App.1995).̜ WefirstaddressHudsonsargumentthatShorterisbarredfromassertingthisissuesincehefailedtoobjectattrial.HudsoncitesTenn.R.Civ.P.32.02,whichstates:8 8 SubjecttotheprovisionsofRule28.02andRule32.04(3),objectionmaybemadeatthetrialorhearingtoreceivinginevidenceanydepositionorpartthereofforanyreasonwhichwouldrequiretheexclusionoftheevidenceifthewitnesswerethenpresentandtestifying.HudsonarguesthatShorterdidnotobjecttotheadmissibilityofDr.Williamssdepositionbeforeherproofwasclosed.Technically,Shorterdidnotregisteranobjectionbeforethedepositionwaspresented,butafterthecourtreadthedeposition,Shorterstated:8 8 Yourhonor,Imopposinganyargumentaboutthecertaintyoftheseopinionsinclosingarguments.WithoutajuryIdidntseeanypointintryingtoraisethatatthispoint. Inabenchtrial,wewillconstruethisstatementasaformalobjection. Inacasesuchasthis,whenthemedicalordoctorbillsexceed$2,500.00,thelawimposesthedutyupontheplaintifftoshowbycompetentproofthattheservicesrenderedwerenecessaryandthatthechargesfortheserviceswerereasonable. Oglev.Brandon ,C.A.No.1247,1989WL48460,at*2(Tenn.App.May12,1989)and Westv.Hudson, HamiltonCircuitC.A.No.827,1988WL122431,at*3(Tenn.App.Nov.18,1988).ShorterarguesthatDr.Williamsstestimonyconcerninghisbillformedicalservicesdidnotprovethattheexpenseswerenecessary.Aspreviouslynoted,Dr.WilliamsstatedthathefeltthetreatmenthegavetoHudsonwasadvisedbasedonhermedicalcomplaints,andhefurtherstatedthatitwasthetypeoftreatmenthewouldwantifhehadthesamecomplaints.ViewingDr.Williamsstestimonyasawhole,weconstruehisopinionthatsuchtreatmentwasadvisedtobeessentiallythesameasopiningthatsuchtreatmentwasnecessarytoassistHudsoninherrecovery.Certainlyaninjuredpartyisentitledtotreatmentthatwillalleviateorlessendiscomfortandshortenthedurationofanypainandsuffering.Perhapsthehumanbodyisconstructedsothat,formostmaladies,naturewilleventuallyovercometheproblemandthebodywillberestoredtofullhealth.However,thelawshouldnotrequirethatapersonmustrelyonnaturealonebut,instead,shouldembracethenotionthatapersonisentitledtoutilizethemarvelousadvancesmadeinthetreatmentofhumanills. Althoughitmaynotusethe magiclanguage,Dr.WilliamsstestimonydoessufficientlyprovethathisrenderedtreatmenttoHudsonwasnecessary. Inadditiontotestifyingconcerninghisowntreatment,Dr.WilliamswasquestionedconcerningtheitemizedtreatmentslistedonBellevueClinicsbill.In Longv.Mattingly ,797S.W.2d889(Tenn.App.1990),thisCourtconsideredthetestimonyofaphysicianconcerningthenecessityofanotherphysiciansservicesandthereasonablenessofhischarges.TheCourtsaid:8 8 Aphysicianwhoisfamiliarwiththeextentandnatureofthemedicaltreatmentapartyhasreceivedmaygiveanopinionconcerningthenecessityofanotherphysician'sservicesandthereasonablenessofthecharges.Tobequalifiedtorendertheseopinions,thephysicianmustfirstdemonstrate(1)knowledgeoftheparty'scondition,(2)knowledgeofthetreatmentthepartyreceived,(3)knowledgeofthecustomarytreatmentoptionsfortheconditioninthemedicalcommunitywherethetreatmentwasrendered,and(4)knowledgeofthecustomarychargesforthetreatment. Id. at893(internalcitationsomitted).  Dr.Williamsstestimonyrevealsthathecomportstotherequirementssetoutin Mattingly and,thus,isqualifiedtotestifyaccordingly.HistestimonyconcerningthenecessityofBellevueClinicstreatmentwasessentiallythesameasforhisown,i.e.,treatmentstorelieveHudsonscomplaints.Hudsonwascertainlyentitledtorelieffromanypainandsufferingthatshemighthavebeenenduring.Dr.WilliamstestifiedthatthecomplaintsthatHudsonhadwhenhewastreatingherwereconsistentwiththehistoryofanautomobileaccidentand,therefore,couldhavebeencausedinthatmanner.Hudsontestifiedthatshewasfreeofanyinjurypriortotheaccidentandthattheproblemssheincurredresultedaftertheaccident.Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,thetrialcourtdidnoterrinconsideringDr.Williamsstestimony. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,andthiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainsttheappellant.       _________________________________       W.FRANKCRAWFORD,       PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. CONCUR:____________________________________ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE ____________________________________ DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE