ÿWPCä  oÌD o{•afnëÂÊY‰+¯Ùq…*–VHeÂ`:ç‘oí%oJß±1¥êÛm "äCг/Ò›OÂÄFòÿÔö½ÏoÂeòÜši´±H"ùÅô=İd@‹Õý¢óÆÀgµäóËøhJÅCô}jQÁâ$;Õwji– “¢-²åíÊoÅ•®{Lñ/ý g0 !YL Í›´–ÊX1ÊÅÔà:f‰\t ¬ë è“]ÌØäH¬oyš3†Ù/SäZV*žÏŒWiþSôö Ú7¬oåßÖô”@Q8 ,¥ÞTƒþ£“ýö˧<•àyî4°{/d6­MΜéÂx‘—dÏ÷$ŸÏÛÁÙ]ýë©Òã s Ю<ùw(lC)s3è_qÙÔFJ/šôtFùR‰I¥ x²(Q»–5$3¼j?Œ*Ô¸«Wä¶x$i­êPƒÍi:^Sè”sàôgç‡LX“RSÖef¤ð=gÍ\éÊpÖçÐNõ=ÿ¯_#·é¬(Ç5~CÐÙÖ–ú¤GzÉ%›Ò°5fÔ¬,§“<ûÕB9dJ…c,±q¶Â|ѱx3•M±Õ!j릎%ö'×`ùo|c€é [³¯W#ÁÂUNƒ %Ñ 0:×UN ^ _ wk 4o ƒ ’ m” « N³ 0~µ 0D3 w b U @… … … … EÅ Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å Å BÇ ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularìmf+â òK+ê:i¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ (.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó þÝ ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô òXXÔWhen€we€refer€to€ð ðMillerðð€in€this€opinion,€we€are€referring€to€the€injured€party.Ô#†Xû¸Xòô e#Ô18(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ‡Xû¸XXXÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ‡¼³ »XXû¸ÔÑ8€>üXXdêdÈ8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ#†Xû¸X»¼³ h#ÔÔ‡î¦îXXû¸ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†Xû¸Xîî¦#ÔÔ‡¼³ »XXû¸ÔˆÐ Ö& ÐÓ  ÓJuly€13,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ#†Xû¸X»¼³ š#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼³ »XXû¸ÔDONALD€MILLER,€òòet€al.óó€v.€CHOO€CHOO€PARTNERS,€L.P.òòóóÐ úJ ÐÔ#†Xû¸X»¼³ ,#Ôó óÌÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99CV0720€€€€€€Samuel€H.€Payne,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌFILED€NOVEMBER€5,€2001Ð ªú  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00007„COA„R3„CV€Ð ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDonald€Miller€and€his€wife,€Terry€Miller,€filed€suit€seeking€damages€associated€with€injuries€that€Mr.Ð d´ ÐMiller׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€allegedly€sustained€when€he€fell€while€getting€into€a€bathtub€enclosure€at€a€hotel€owned€byÐ P  Ðthe€defendant€Choo€Choo€Partners,€L.P.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiffs.€€As€remittedÐ <Œ Ðby€the€trial€court,€Miller€was€awarded€$1,000,000€and€his€wife€was€awarded€consortium€damagesÐ (x Ðof€$175,000.€The€defendant€appeals,€arguing,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€it€was€entitled€to€a€directed€verdictÐ d Ðbecause€the€plaintiffs€failed€to€establish€that€the€defendantððs€negligence€caused€Millerððs€back€andÐ P Ðneck€injuries.€€We€affirm.Ð ì< ÐÓ ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€CourtÐ Ä ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,Ð ˆØ ÐP.J.,óó€joined.€€òòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€filed€a€dissenting€opinion.Ð tÄ ÐÌDonald€W.€Strickland,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Choo€Choo€Partners,€L.P.Ð L œ ÐÌJohn€D.€McMahan,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€and€Donald€Capparella,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ $"t! Ðappellees,€Donald€Miller€and€Terry€Miller.Ð #`" ÐÓ§ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓÓ  ÓI.Ð À&"& ÐÓð Óà  àà ` àÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€reside€in€Peoria,€Illinois.€€At€the€time€of€the€subject€incident,€Miller€wasÐ ˜(è#( Ðemployed€by€Komatsu€Mining€Equipment€as€an€area€service€manager.€€On€April€1,€1996,€he€traveledÐ „)Ô$) Ðto€Chattanooga€for€the€purpose€of€demonstrating€some€of€his€companyððs€large€mining€trucks€to€aÐ ° Ðpool€of€potential€customers.€€He€checked€into€the€Chattanooga€Choo€Choo€Hotel,€a€hotel€owned€byÐ œì Ðthe€defendant.€€On€the€morning€of€April€2,€1996,€as€Miller€was€stepping€into€the€bathtub€to€take€aÐ ˆØ Ðshower,€he€grabbed€a€bar€located€on€the€opposite€wall€inside€the€bathtub.€€The€bar€pulled€away€fromÐ tÄ Ðthe€wall,€causing€him€to€fall€backwards.€€As€a€result€of€his€fall,€his€right€hip€struck€the€edge€of€theÐ `° Ðbathtub.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àUpon€his€return€to€Peoria€on€April€11,€1996,€Miller€went€to€see€his€family€physician,€Dr.Ð $ t ÐRichard€Schock.€€He€complained€of€low€back€pain.€€He€told€Dr.€Schock€of€his€fall€in€the€hotelÐ  ` Ðbathroom.€€Dr.€Schock€examined€him€and€found€that€he€was€tender€in€the€lumbar€area.€€HeÐ ü L  Ðprescribed€pain€medication,€muscle€relaxants,€and€anti„inflammatory€drugs.€€When€Miller€did€notÐ è 8  Ðimprove,€Dr.€Schock€ordered€a€MRI€scan.€€The€scan€showed€a€disc€herniation€in€the€lumbar€regionÐ Ô$  Ðof€Millerððs€back.€€Dr.€Schock€referred€Miller€to€Dr.€Richard€Lister,€a€neurosurgeon€who€hadÐ À  Ðpreviously€performed€surgery€on€Miller€in€1991€to€correct€another€disc€herniation€in€his€back.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðsame€doctor€had€also€operated€on€Millerððs€neck€in€1992.€€Dr.€Lister€initially€recommended€physicalÐ ˜è  Ðtherapy€and€steroid€injections.€€When€Millerððs€condition€did€not€improve,€Dr.€Lister€recommendedÐ „Ô  Ðsurgery.€€On€May€16,€1996,€Dr.€Lister€performed€surgery€to€correct€the€disc€herniation€in€MillerððsÐ pÀ Ðlow€back.€€He€indicated€at€trial€that€the€herniation€was€in€the€same€location€as€the€herniation€that€hadÐ \¬ Ðbeen€the€subject€of€the€1991€surgery.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àMiller€returned€to€work€on€July€24,€1996.€€He€continued€to€experience€back€pain,€however,Ð  p Ðand€in€September,€1996,€he€returned€to€Dr.€Schock.€€Another€MRI€scan€of€his€back€was€conducted,Ð  \ Ðbut€nothing€unusual€was€found.€€Dr.€Schock€prescribed€physical€therapy.Ð øH ÐÌà  àMiller€testified€that€he€also€experienced€neck€pain€after€his€fall.€€He€testified€that€he€did€notÐ Ð  Ðmention€this€pain€to€either€Dr.€Schock€or€Dr.€Lister,€initially€believing€it€was€simply€a€symptom€ofÐ ¼  Ðfatigue.€€In€January,€1997,€he€went€to€Dr.€Schock€for€treatment€of€his€neck.€€Dr.€SchockÐ ¨ø Ðrecommended€a€MRI€scan€of€his€neck.€€The€MRI€revealed€evidence€of€a€disc€herniation€at€the€sameÐ ”ä Ðlocation€as€the€herniation€that€was€the€subject€of€the€earlier€neck€surgery.€€Miller€was€again€referredÐ €Ð Ðto€Dr.€Lister,€who€performed€surgery€to€correct€the€herniation€on€March€18,€1997.€€Miller€did€notÐ l¼ Ðreturn€to€work€after€the€neck€surgery.€€He€testified€that€his€ability€to€perform€the€duties€of€his€job€wasÐ X ¨ Ðð ðextremely€hamperedðð€after€the€surgeries€on€his€back€and€neck.€Ð D!” ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð #l! ÐÓáÓÌà  àAs€previously€indicated,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs.€€The€trial€courtÐ ô$D # Ðremitted€Millerððs€award€to€$1,000,000€and€that€of€Mrs.€Miller€to€$175,000.€€The€defendant€appeals,Ð à%0!$ Ðraising€the€following€issues:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà8 ` à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€refusing€to€grant€the€defendantððs€motionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€directed€verdict,€which€motion€was€based€upon€the€alleged€failureÐ )à$( Ðof€the€evidence€to€establish€the€requisite€causation€nexus€betweenÐ |*Ì%) ÐMillerððs€fall€and€his€neck€and€back€injuries?Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà  àà8 ` à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€admitting€expert€testimony€over€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€objection?Мì` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à3.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€admitting€evidence€of€Millerððs€medicalÐ tÄ Ðexpenses€over€the€defendantððs€objection?Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à4.€€Is€the€juryððs€verdict€excessive€as€being€contrary€to€the€law€and€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðproperly„admitted€evidence?Ð$ t` x` x Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà  àà8 ` à5.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€refusing€to€give€the€defendantððs€specialÐ ü L  Ðrequests€for€jury€instructions?Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌThe€plaintiffsðð€brief€responds€to€the€defendantððs€issues.€€As€a€separate€issue,€the€plaintiffs€contendÐ À  Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€remitting€Millerððs€award€from€$1,500,000€to€$1,000,000€and€Mrs.€MillerððsÐ ¬ü  Ðverdict€from€$250,000€to€$175,000.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà@vv(ìàIII.ˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà@‹‹)ìàA.ˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€it€was€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict€because,€according€to€theÐ  p Ðdefendant,€the€plaintiffs€did€not€prove€the€defendantððs€negligence€caused€the€injuries€to€Millerððs€backÐ  \ Ðand€neck.Ð øH ÐÌà@‘‘)ìàB.ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àOur€standard€of€review€of€a€trial€courtððs€decision€on€a€motion€for€directed€verdict€is€well„Ð ¨ø Ðsettled.€€A€directed€verdict€is€appropriate€only€when€the€evidence€is€susceptible€to€but€oneÐ ”ä Ðconclusion.€€ò òòòEaton€v.€McLain,ó óóó€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994);€ò òòòLong€v.€Mattingly,ó óóó€797€€S.W.2dÐ €Ð Ð889,€892€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€In€deciding€whether€this€is€the€situation€in€a€given€case,€we€mustÐ l¼ Ðð ðtake€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€favoring€the€opponent€of€the€motion.ðð€€ò òòòLong,ó óóó€797Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€at€892.€€In€addition,€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€the€opponent€of€the€motion€mustÐ D!” Ðbe€allowed,€and€all€evidence€contrary€to€the€opponentððs€position€must€be€disregarded.€€ò òòòEaton,ó óóó€891Ð 0"€  ÐS.W.2d€at€590;€ò òòòLong,ó óóó€797€S.W.2d€at€892.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAs€a€general€rule,€the€causation€of€a€medical€condition€must€be€established€by€testimony€fromÐ ô$D # Ða€medical€expert.€€ò òòòThomas€v.€Aetna€Life€&€Cas.€Co.,ó óóó€812€S.W.2d€278,€283€(Tenn.€1991).€€SuchÐ à%0!$ Ðtestimony€is€not€sufficient€to€establish€causation€if€it€is€speculative€in€nature.€€ò òòòPrimm€v.€WickesÐ Ì&"% ÐLumber€Co.,ó óóó€845€S.W.2d€768,€771€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Quoting€extensively€from€ProfessorÐ ¸'#& ÐProsser€and€other€authorities,€the€Supreme€Court€has€opined€as€follows:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðThe€plaintiff€must€introduce€evidence€which€affords€a€reasonableÐ |*Ì%) Ðbasis€for€the€conclusion€that€it€is€more€likely€than€not€that€the€conductÐ h+¸&* Ðof€the€defendant€was€a€cause€in€fact€of€the€result.€€A€mere€possibilityÐ ° Ðof€such€causation€is€not€enough;€and€when€the€matter€remains€one€ofÐ œì Ðpure€speculation€or€conjecture€or€the€probabilities€are€at€best€evenlyÐ ˆØ Ðbalanced,€it€becomes€the€duty€of€the€court€to€direct€a€verdict€for€theÐ tÄ Ðdefendant...The€plaintiff€is€not,€however,€required€to€prove€the€caseÐ `° Ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€plaintiff€need€not€negative€entirelyÐ L œ Ðthe€possibility€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€not€a€cause€and€it€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðenough€to€introduce€evidence€from€which€reasonable€persons€mayÐ $ t Ðconclude€that€it€is€more€probable€that€the€event€was€caused€by€theÐ  ` Ðdefendant€than€that€it€was€not...ðð€€Prosser€[and€Keaton,€òòTortsóó,€ðð€41,€p.Ð ü L  Ð269€(5th€ed.€1984)].Ðè 8 ` x` x Ðò òòòÌó óóóà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ðA€doctorððs€testimony€that€a€certain€thing€is€òòpossibleóó€is€no€evidenceÐ ¼  Ðat€all.€€His€opinion€as€to€what€is€€possible€is€no€more€valid€than€theÐ ¨ø  Ðjuryððs€own€speculation€as€to€what€is€or€is€not€possible.€€AlmostÐ ”ä  Ðanything€is€possible,€and€it€is€thus€improper€to€allow€a€jury€toÐ €Ð  Ðconsider€and€base€a€verdict€upon€a€ððpossibleðð€cause€of€death.ðð€€ò òòòPalaceÐ l¼ ÐBar,€Inc.€v.€Fearnot,ó óóó€269€Ind.€405,€381€N.E.2d€858,€864€(1978).€Ð X¨ Ðð ðThe€mere€possibility€of€a€causal€relationship,€without€more,€isÐ D” Ðinsufficient€to€qualify€as€an€admissible€expert€opinion.ðð€€ò òòòKirschnerÐ 0€ Ðv.€Broadhead,ó óóó€671€F.2d€1034,€1039€(7th€Cir.€1982).Ðl` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€admissibility€of€an€expert€medical€opinion,€of€course,€should€notÐ ôD Ðturn€on€whether€the€testifying€physician€characterizes€a€particularÐ à0 Ðpotential€cause€of€an€injury€as€ð ðconceivable,ðð€ð ðpossibleðð€orÐ Ì Ðð ðprobable.ðð€€òòSee€ò òTrapp€v.€4„10€Investment€Corp.,ó óóó€424€F.2d€1261,Ð ¸ Ð1268€(8th€Cir.€1970).€€Regardless€of€the€term€employed,€if€theÐ ¤ô Ðphysicianððs€Ðà` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàð ðtestimony€is€such€in€nature€and€basis€of€hypothesis€asÐ h¸ Ðto€judicially€impress€that€the€opinion€expressedÐ T ¤ Ðrepresents€his€professional€judgment€as€to€the€mostÐ @! Ðlikely€one€among€the€possible€causes€of€the€physicalÐ ,"|  Ðcondition€involved,€the€court€is€entitled€to€admit€theÐ #h! Ðopinion€and€leave€its€weight€to€the€jury.ðð€€ò òòòNorland€v.Ð $T" ÐWashington€General€Hospital,ó óóó€461€F.2d€694,€697Ð ð$@ # Ð(Cir.€8,€1972).ÐÜ%,!$¸ ¸  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àNevertheless,€a€mere€possibility€is€not€an€affirmative€basis€for€aÐ ´'#& Ðfinding€of€fact.€€ð ðIn€the€language€of€the€law€of€evidence,€[a€medicalÐ  (ð#' Ðopinion€suggesting]€that€which€is€merely€possible,€standing€alone€andÐ Œ)Ü$( Ðnot€offered€as€auxiliary€or€rebuttal€testimony€is€immaterial€to€theÐ x*È%) Ðascertainment€of€the€fact€and€so€is€inadmissible€as€evidence€of€thatÐ d+´&* Ðfact.ðð€€ò òòòMartin€v.€United€States,€ó óóó284€F.2d€217,€219€(D.C.€Cir.,€1960).€Ð ° Ðò òòòKirschner€v.€Broadhead,€ó ósupraò ò,€ó óóó671€F.2d€at€p.€1039„1040.€òòò òМì` x` x ÐÌLindsey€v.€Miami€Dev.€Corp.,ó óóó€689€S.W.2d€856,€861„62€(Tenn.€1985)€(emphasis€in€original).Ð pÀ ÐÌà@)ìàC.ˆÐ H ˜ ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€maintained€at€trial€that€Miller€sustained€injuries€to€both€his€back€and€neck€asÐ  p Ða€result€of€his€fall€at€the€defendantððs€hotel.€€To€establish€causation€of€these€injuries,€they€presentedÐ  \ Ðthe€video€deposition€testimony€of€Dr.€Richard€Schock€and€Dr.€J.€Richard€Lister.€€Regarding€MillerððsÐ ø H  Ðback€injury,€Dr.€Schock€testified€as€follows:Ð ä 4  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àDuring€the€course€of€your€care€and€treatment€of€Mr.€MillerÐ ¼  Ðbetween€April€11,€1996,€and€September€26,€1996,€did€you€reach€anÐ ¨ø  Ðopinion€according€to€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€as€toÐ ”ä  Ðthe€cause€of€his€back€problems€that€you€were€treating€him€for€duringÐ €Ð  Ðthat€period€of€time?Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àòòI€felt€that€the€back€problem€that€I€saw€him€for€in€April€wasÐ D” Ðcaused€by€the€fall€in€the€[hotel].€óóÐ0€` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€On€redirect€examination,€Dr.€Schock€testified€as€follows:Ð X ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àMr.€Strickland€has€asked€you€whether€Mr.€Miller€ever€toldÐ à0 Ðyou€that€his€neck€problems€were€related€to€the€fall.€€And€what€IððmÐ Ì Ðasking€you€is€simply€whether€the€causal€connection€or€theÐ ¸ Ðdetermination€whether€an€injury€or€trauma€can€exacerbate€orÐ ¤ô Ðaggravate€a€preexisting€degenerative€disc€disease€in€a€patient€with€aÐ à Ðsurgical€history€such€as€Mr.€Miller€is€a€determination€for€a€physicianÐ |Ì Ðor€a€determination€for€a€layperson.Ðh¸` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àI€definitely€feel€that€ð!ð€even€with€his€back,€he€came€inÐ @! Ðcomplaining€of€his€back,€and€for€me€to€ð!ð€on€this€first€evaluation€IÐ ,"|  Ðdidnððt€feel€it€was€a€herniated€disc.€€And€we€treated€him€conservativelyÐ #h! Ðhoping€that€it€wasnððt€and€that€it€would€improve€with€just€rest€andÐ $T" Ðanti[„]inflammatories€and€so€on.€€And€the€pain€persisted€andÐ ð$@ # Ðincreased,€he€had€some€sciatic€irritation.€€So€we€proceeded€with€anÐ Ü%,!$ ÐMRI.ÐÈ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnd€sometimes€injuries€donððt€expose€themselves€forÐ  (ð#' Ðsometime€after€the€accident.€€So€I€cannot€say€with€any,€you€know,Ð Œ)Ü$( Ðcertainty€that,€yes,€the€herniated€disc€was€exacerbated€by€the€fall.€€ButÐ x*È%) ÐI€can€say€that€the€fall€could€have€exacerbated€the€herniation.Ðd+´&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àAnd€thatððs€about€ð!ð€youððre€talking€about€the€neck€herniation?а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àBoth€of€them.ЈØ` x` x ÐÌà  àOn€the€subject€of€Millerððs€back€injury,€Dr.€Lister€testified€as€follows:Ð `° Ðà  àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àIs€the€difficulty€that€this€gentleman€had€in€his€lumbar€spineÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€you€saw€him€for€in€April€and€May€consistent€with€a€fall€that€heÐ $ t Ðdescribed€to€you?Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àIt€could€be.Ðè 8 ` x` x ÐÌOn€redirect€examination,€Dr.€Lister€further€testified€as€to€the€cause€of€Millerððs€back€injury:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àIn€your€opinion,€Dr.€Lister,€is€it€more€likely€than€not€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðrecurrent€disc€disease€in€the€lumbar€spine€was€caused€as€a€result€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€fall€he€described€to€you?ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà  àà ` àAà ¸ àI€donððt€know€what€caused€his€recurrent€disc€herniation.€€òòBasedÐ H˜ Ðon€his€history,€the€two€are€relatedóó,€but€I€donððt€know€what€caused€theÐ 4„ Ðdisc€herniation.Ð p` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).Ð øH ÐÌà  àDr.€Schock€testified€that€he€ð ðfelt€that€the€back€problem...was€caused€by€the€fall.ðð€€Dr.€ListerÐ Ð  Ðopined€that€the€fall€and€the€ð ðrecurrent€disc€disease€in€the€lumbar€spineðð€are€related.€€Dr.€Lister€also€Ð ¼  Ðtestified€that€the€disc€herniation€in€Millerððs€back€ð ðcould€beðð€consistent€with€his€fall.€€It€is€true€thatÐ ¨ø ÐDr.€Lister€testified€that€he€did€not€know€ð ðwhat€caused€the€disc€herniation.ðð€€But€this€testimony€canÐ ”ä Ðbe€legitimately€construed€as€a€statement€by€the€doctor€that€he€did€not€know€what€caused€thisÐ €Ð Ðcondition€òòoriginallyóó.€€This€is€the€ð ðstrongest€legitimate€viewðð€of€this€evidence€in€favor€of€theÐ l¼ Ðplaintiffs,€òòsee€ò òLongó óóó,€797€S.W.2d€at€892;€on€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€they€are€entitled€to€thatÐ X ¨ Ðð ðview.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€Neither€Dr.€Schock€nor€Dr.€Lister€expressly€disavowed€their€testimony€that€there€wasÐ D!” Ða€causal€relationship€between€the€fall€and€the€back€injury.€€To€the€extent€that€other€testimony€by€theseÐ 0"€  Ðdoctors€tended€to€dilute€or€lessen€the€effect€of€their€ð ðrelationshipðð€testimony,€that€other€testimonyÐ #l! Ðgoes€to€the€weight€to€be€given€their€ð ðcausal€relationshipðð€testimony.€€This€weighing€process€was€forÐ $X" Ðthe€jury.€€We€certainly€are€not€permitted€to€say€that€their€ð ðcausal€relationshipðð€testimony€was,€as€aÐ ô$D # Ðmatter€of€law,€òònegatedóó€by€their€other€testimony.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€was€not€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict€on€the€plaintiffsðð€claim€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðnegligence€of€the€defendant€caused€or€contributed€to€the€current€condition€in€Millerððs€low€back.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÐ  |*Ì%) Ðà@‹‹)ìàD.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àWe€now€turn€to€the€evidence€regarding€Millerððs€neck€injury.€€On€this€issue,€Dr.€SchockÐ ˆØ Ðtestified€as€follows:Ð tÄ Ðà  àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àDr.€Schock,€would€you€describe€for€the€jury€at€this€stage€howÐ L œ Ða€gentleman,€a€man€such€as€Mr.€Miller€who€had€had€a€previous€neckÐ 8 ˆ Ðsurgery€is€susceptible€to€subsequent€injury?Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMR.€STRICKLAND:€€€€€Object€to€the€form€of€the€question.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àYou€may€answer€it,€Dr.€Schock.€€If€he€is€susceptible.€€If€aÐ Ô$  Ðparty€who€has€had€previous€neck€surgery€is€not€more€susceptible€toÐ À  Ðtrauma,€please€tell€us.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMR.€STRICKLAND:€€€€€Same€objection.Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àI€definitely€feel€that€Mr.€Miller€has,€you€know,€what€we€callÐ \¬ Ðdegenerative€disc€disease€ð!ð€and€this€is€something€thatððs€probablyÐ H˜ Ðhereditary€or€genetic€ð!ð€and€that€he€has€a€predisposition€to€having€backÐ 4„ Ðand€neck€problems.Ð p` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àDefinitely€a€fall€can€aggravate€the€condition€and€cause€him€toÐ øH Ðhave€the€herniated€disc€show€up€after€the€injury€and€would€ð!ð€the€ð!ðÐ ä4 Ðwhere€a€fall€or€the€same€type€of€injury€in€somebody€who€didnððt€haveÐ Ð  Ðdegenerative€disc€problems€may€not€sustain€the€same€type€of€injury.м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àGiven€Mr.€Millerððs€history€and€given€your€physicalÐ ”ä Ðevaluations€in€1996€and€then€in€early€1997,€can€you€state,€Dr.€Schock,Ð €Ð Ðwithin€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty€whether€the€fall€heÐ l¼ Ðdescribed€to€you€in€April€of€1996€at€the€Chattanooga€Choo„Choo,Ð X ¨ Ðformerly€a€Holiday€Inn,€did€or€did€not€aggravate€or€exacerbate€thisÐ D!” Ðgentlemanððs€preexisting€neck€problem?Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xàà8¸ ¸ àà8hÈÈà*à À à*à  à*Ð$X"hphp ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àI€ð!ð€I€definitely€cannot€put€a€ð!ð€say€that€the€fall€caused€it.€€HeÐ à%0!$ Ðdefinitely€has€a€predisposing€condition€that€would€make€himÐ Ì&"% Ðsusceptible€to€that€type€of€an€injury€from€a€fall.и'#&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àAre€the€symptoms€that€you€observed€and€that€he€described€toÐ )à$( Ðyou€in€January€of€1997€consistent€with€an€individual€who€has€sufferedÐ |*Ì%) Ðan€exacerbation€of€a€neck€problem€from€a€traumatic€or€injuring€event?Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMR.€STRICKLAND:€€€€€Object€to€the€form€of€the€question.а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àThe€symptoms€heððs€ð!ð€Iððm€ð!ð€the€symptoms€heððs€having,€couldÐ ˆØ Ðthey€be€brought€on€by€his€fall€ð!ð€ÐtÄ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àYes,€sir.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àð!ð€is€basically€what€youððre€asking?Ð$ t` x` x Ðà  àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àYes,€sir.Ðü L ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àYes,€they€could€be.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà ¸ àAnd€is€that€opinion€stated€according€to€a€reasonable€degree€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðmedical€certainty?Иè ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMR.€STRICKLAND:€€€€€Object€to€the€form€of€the€question.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà ¸ àYeah.€€Yes.ÐH˜` x` x ÐÌà  àDr.€Schockððs€testimony€regarding€Millerððs€neck€injury€is€clearly€not€as€strong€as€theÐ  p Ðtestimony€regarding€his€low€back€injury.€€The€issue€for€us€is€whether,€given€ð ðthe€strongest€legitimateÐ  \ Ðview€of€the€evidenceðð€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs,€òòsee€ò òidó óóó.,€there€is€sufficient€evidence€of€causationÐ øH Ðbetween€Millerððs€fall€and€the€neck€injury€for€which€the€plaintiffs€are€seeking€compensation.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIt€is€clear€from€the€above„quoted€testimony€that€the€òòoriginóó€of€Millerððs€degenerative€discÐ ¼  Ðdisease,€is€ð ðprobably€hereditary€or€genetic.ðð€€This€testimony€is€consistent€with€the€plaintiffsðð€theoryÐ ¨ø Ðthat€Millerððs€fall€aggravated€a€òòpre„existingóó€condition.€€It€is€likewise€clear€from€Dr.€SchockððsÐ ”ä Ðtestimony€that€such€a€pre„existing€condition€renders€a€person€such€as€Miller€ð ðmore€susceptible€toÐ €Ð Ðtrauma,ðð€òòi.e.óó,€more€susceptible€to€injury€than€one€ð ðwho€didnððt€have€degenerative€disc€problems.ðð€€InÐ l¼ Ðresponse€to€a€question€as€to€whether€Millerððs€fall€ð ðdid€or€did€not€aggravate€or€exacerbate€[Millerððs]Ð X ¨ Ðpre„existing€neck€problem,ðð€Dr.€Schock€opined€that€he€could€not€say€that€the€fall€ð ðcausedðð€hisÐ D!” Ðcondition.€€This,€of€course,€is€consistent€with€the€doctorððs€testimony€that€his€degenerative€discÐ 0"€  Ðdisease€is€ð ðprobablyðð€something€he€was€born€with.€€The€remainder€of€the€doctorððs€answer€is€at€theÐ #l! Ðcrux€of€the€issue€before€us:Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà8 ` àHe€definitely€has€a€predisposing€condition€that€òòwould€make€himÐ à%0!$ Ðsusceptible€to€that€type€of€injury€from€a€fall.óóÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€When€this€answer€is€viewed€in€the€context€of€the€question€that€prompted€it,€weÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfind€that€it€can€be€interpreted€as€an€affirmative€answer€to€that€question.€€Certainly,€it€is€subject€toÐ )à$( Ðanother€interpretation€ð!ð€one€that€is€favorable€to€the€position€of€the€defendant;€however,€if€thisÐ |*Ì%) Ðtestimony€can€be€reasonably€interpreted€as€an€affirmative€response€to€the€question€posed,€we€mustÐ h+¸&* Ðadopt€this€latter€interpretation€on€the€issue€of€whether€a€directed€verdict€was€appropriate€in€this€case.€Ð ° ÐThis€is€because,€once€again,€our€mandate€is€to€view€the€evidence€in€a€light€ð ðfavoring€the€opponentÐ œì Ðof€the€motion,ðð€òòi.e.óó,€the€plaintiffs.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€excerpts€from€the€transcript,€upon€which€we€have€just€commented,€were€followed€by€Dr.Ð `° ÐSchockððs€testimony€indicating€that€there€ð ðcouldðð€be€a€finding€of€consistency€between€the€symptomsÐ L œ Ðto€which€Dr.€Schock€responded€and€ð ðan€individual€who€has€suffered€an€exacerbation€of€a€neckÐ 8 ˆ Ðproblem€from€a€traumatic€or€injuring€event.ðð€€We€find€that€the€defendant€is€making€too€much€of€theÐ $ t Ðword€ð ðcouldðð€in€the€context€of€the€medical€testimony€òòin€this€particular€caseóó.€€That€testimony€can€beÐ  ` Ðinterpreted€as€an€expression€of€opinion€to€the€effect€that€there€ð ðcouldðð€be€a€relationship,€òòspeakingÐ ü L  Ðhypotheticallyóó,€between€theòò€typeóó€of€injury€and€the€òòtypeóó€of€incident€involved€in€the€instant€case.€€SuchÐ è 8  Ða€statement€regarding€a€hypothetical€situation€is€not€enough€to€render€Dr.€Schockððs€testimonyÐ Ô$  Ðineffective€on€the€issue€of€the€causation€of€Millerððs€neck€injury.€€Again,€the€weighing€of€theÐ À  Ðtestimony€was€for€the€jury.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWhen€all€of€Dr.€Schockððs€testimony€is€read€in€context,€and€when€it€is€viewed€in€a€light€mostÐ „Ô  Ðfavorable€to€the€plaintiffs,€we€cannot€say€that€there€is€no€testimonial€basis€upon€which€a€jury€couldÐ pÀ Ðrender€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiffs€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€fall€at€the€hotel€caused€Millerððs€neckÐ \¬ Ðproblems.€€To€borrow€the€language€of€Professor€Prosser€as€cited€in€the€ò òòòLindseyó óóó€case,€we€find€thatÐ H˜ ÐDr.€Schockððs€testimony€ð ðaffords€a€reasonable€basis€for€the€conclusion€that€it€is€more€likely€than€notÐ 4„ Ðthat€the€conduct€of€the€defendant€was€a€cause€in€fact€of€the€result.ðð€€ò òòòLindseyó óóó,€689€S.W.2d€at€861.Ð  p ÐÌà  àWith€all€due€respect€to€our€colleague,€Judge€Swiney,€we€believe€that€he€is€putting€too€muchÐ øH Ðemphasis,€in€this€particular€case,€on€the€doctorsðð€use€of€the€word€ð ðcould.ðð€This€approach€is€exactlyÐ ä4 Ðwhat€the€ò òòòLindseyó óóó€case€cautions€against:€ð ðThe€admissibility€of€an€expert€medical€opinion,€of€course,Ð Ð  Ðshould€not€turn€on€whether€the€testifying€physician€characterizes€a€particular€potential€cause€of€anÐ ¼  Ðinjury€as€ððconceivable,ðð€ððpossibleðð€or€ððprobable.ðððð€ò òòòLindseyó óóó,€689€S.W.2d€at€862.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€would€agree€with€Judge€Swiney€if€the€testifying€doctors€had€said,€in€so€many€words,€ð ðIÐ €Ð Ðcannot€say€that€the€fall€caused€the€condition€for€which€I€treated€the€plaintiff.€€The€most€I€can€say€isÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€fall€could€have€resulted€in€that€condition.ðð€€Clearly,€if€this€had€been€the€testimony,€it€wouldÐ X ¨ Ðhave€been€insufficient€to€ward€off€the€defendantððs€motion€for€directed€verdict.€€But€this€is€not€whatÐ D!” Ðwe€are€dealing€with€in€this€case.€€Rather,€we€have€before€us€expert€testimony€that€tends€to€establishÐ 0"€  Ðcausation€on€the€one€hand,€and€other€testimony€by€the€same€experts€that€tends€to€diminish€the€effectÐ #l! Ðof€their€causation€testimony.€€In€our€judgment,€the€latter€testimony€goes€to€the€weight€to€be€given€theÐ $X" Ðformer€testimony.€€We€believe€it€was€for€the€jury€to€sort€all€of€this€out.Ð ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌà  àIt€is€unreasonable€to€expect€a€medical€expert€to€testify€with€legal€precision.€€This€is€not€to€sayÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€his€or€her€testimony€does€not€have€to€meet€a€certain€standard;€clearly€under€ò òòòLindsey,ó óóó€it€does.€Ð ¸'#& ÐBut€such€testimony€must€be€viewed€as€the€testimony€of€a€medical€person€and€not€that€of€anÐ ¤(ô#' Ðindividual€trained€in€the€law.€€We€are€expecting€too€much€if€we€think€that€doctors€can€speak€with€theÐ )à$( Ðprecision€of€a€hornbook€on€causation.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àJudge€Swineyððs€dissent€opines€that€Dr.€Listerððs€testimony€that€ð ðthe€[the€fall€and€the€plaintiffððsÐ ° Ðcondition]€are€relatedðð€does€not€establish€causation.€€He€emphasizes€the€testimony€ð!ð€ð ðI€donððt€knowÐ œì Ðwhat€caused€his€recurrent€disc€herniationðð€ð!ð€but€gives€short€shrift€to€what€follows€in€the€doctorððsÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€ð!ð€ð ðI€donððt€know€what€caused€the€disc€herniation.ðð€€We€continue€to€believe€that€this€lastÐ tÄ Ðstatement€can€be€construed€as€Dr.€Listerððs€frank€admission€that€he€did€not€know€what€caused€the€discÐ `° Ðherniation€to€òòfirstóó€manifest€itself€going€back€to€the€time€of€the€original€back€injury€in€1991;€ratherÐ L œ Ðthan€an€expression€of€ambivalence€as€to€the€cause€of€Millerððs€òòcurrentóó€back€condition.€€In€any€event,Ð 8 ˆ Ðwe€believe€there€are€two€ways€to€view€this€testimony.€€One€is€favorable€to€the€movant€ð!ð€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€ð!ð€while€the€other€is€favorable€to€the€nonmovant€ð!ð€the€plaintiff.€€With€all€due€respect€to€ourÐ  ` Ðcolleague,€we€believe€he€has€selected€the€former.€€We€believe€the€latter€one€is€the€appropriate€oneÐ ü L  Ðfor€us€to€select€in€view€of€the€rule€favoring€the€interpretation€that€is€consistent€with€the€position€ofÐ è 8  Ðthe€nonmovant€on€directed€verdict.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àWe€also€note€that€Judge€Swineyððs€dissent€fails€to€give€sufficient€deference€to€Dr.€SchockððsÐ ¬ü  Ðstraightforward€testimony€that€he€ð ðfelt€that€the€back€problem€that€[he]€saw€[Miller]€for€in€April€wasÐ ˜è  Ðcaused€by€the€fall€in€the€[hotel].ðð€€We€do€not€believe€we€are€at€liberty€to€ignore€this€particularÐ „Ô  Ðtestimony.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€adhere€to€our€opinion€that€when€the€evidence€is€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ H˜ Ðplaintiffs€as€the€nonmovants€and€when€they€are€given€the€benefit€of€all€reasonable€inference,€theÐ 4„ Ðevidence€is€sufficient€to€make€out€the€necessary€ò òòòLindseyó óóó€causation.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€grant€the€defendant€a€directed€verdict€on€theÐ øH Ðcausation€issue€with€respect€to€Millerððs€neck€condition.Ð ä4 ÐÌà@––)ìàE.ˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àHaving€found€that€the€expert€testimony€of€Dr.€Schock€and€Dr.€Lister€was€sufficient€toÐ ”ä Ðestablish€the€relevant€causation€of€Millerððs€back€and€neck€injuries,€we€conclude€that€Dr.€SchockððsÐ €Ð Ðand€Dr.€Listerððs€testimony€regarding€causation€was€properly€admitted€by€the€trial€court.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€doctorsðð€testimony€on€otherÐ D!” Ðgrounds.€€Specifically,€it€objects€to€Dr.€Listerððs€testimony,€wherein,€after€stating€that€Miller€told€himÐ 0"€  Ðthat€the€back€injury€resulted€from€the€fall,€Dr.€Lister€testified€that€he€had€no€reason€to€questionÐ #l! ÐMillerððs€veracity€and€that€he€had€found€him€ð ðto€be€an€honest€and€truthful€historian.ðð€€While€suchÐ $X" Ðtestimony€may€well€have€been€improper,€we€find€its€admission€was,€at€most,€harmless€error.€€òòSeeÐ ô$D # ÐóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€also€takes€exception€to€a€question€posed€to€Dr.€Schock,€in€which€the€doctorÐ ¸'#& Ðwas€asked€ð ðhowðð€a€person,€such€as€Miller,€who€has€had€prior€neck€surgery€is€more€susceptible€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsubsequent€injury.€€The€defendant€contends€that€this€question€was€leading€and€therefore€improper.€Ð )à$( ÐHowever,€we€note€that€before€Dr.€Schock€could€respond€to€the€question,€the€plaintiffsðð€counselÐ |*Ì%) Ðrephrased€the€question€and€asked€the€doctor€ð ðifðð€a€person€with€a€previous€neck€surgery€is€moreÐ h+¸&* Ðsusceptible€to€trauma,€to€which€Dr.€Schock€responded€in€the€affirmative.€€The€objectionable€languageÐ ° Ðhaving€been€cured,€we€see€no€basis€for€the€defendantððs€complaint.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð œì ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð tÄ ÐÓ+ŒÓÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€the€admission€of€evidence€relatingÐ L œ Ðto€Millerððs€medical€expenses.€€The€defendant€argues€that€because€the€plaintiffs€failed€to€establish€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcausation€of€Millerððs€neck€injury,€the€medical€expenses€related€to€this€injury€should€have€beenÐ $ t Ðexcluded.€€It€further€contends€that€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Schock€and€Dr.€Lister€was€insufficient€toÐ  ` Ðestablish€the€necessity€and€reasonableness€of€many€of€these€expenses.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€disagree€on€both€points.€€As€we€have€already€found€that€the€expert€testimony€sufficientlyÐ Ô$  Ðestablished€the€causation€of€Millerððs€neck€injury,€those€expenses€related€to€his€neck€injury€wereÐ À  Ðproperly€admitted.€€Moreover,€we€find€that€the€plaintiffs€presented€sufficient€proof€of€the€necessityÐ ¬ü  Ðand€reasonableness€of€Millerððs€medical€expenses.€€Both€Dr.€Schock€and€Dr.€Lister€testified€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðservices€they€personally€rendered€to€Miller€were€necessary€and€that€their€charges€were€reasonable.€Ð „Ô  ÐMoreover,€both€doctors€testified€as€to€the€necessity€and€reasonableness€of€the€medical€charges€ofÐ pÀ Ðother€health€providers.€€Upon€reviewing€the€doctorsðð€testimony,€we€find€that€there€is€sufficientÐ \¬ Ðevidence€to€establish€the€necessity€and€reasonableness€of€the€$30,534.91€in€medical€expensesÐ H˜ Ðclaimed€by€Miller.€€However,€even€if€the€doctorsðð€testimony€was€inadequate€as€to€some€of€theÐ 4„ Ðexpenses€claimed,€such€a€finding€would€not€prompt€us€to€find€the€award€to€Miller€to€be€excessive.€Ð  p ÐThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ð  \ ÐÌÓ  ÓV.Ð ä4 ÐÓ…“ÓÌÓ  ÓA.Ð ¼  ÐÓ¹“ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€verdict€as€remitted€is€excessive.€€We€disagree.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àOur€task€with€respect€to€this€issue€is€clear.€€On€a€jury€verdict,€we€ð ðare€required€to€take€theÐ l¼ Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€all€the€evidence,€including€all€reasonable€inferences€therefrom,€to€sustainÐ X ¨ Ðthe€verdict;€to€assume€the€truth€of€all€the€evidence€that€supports€it;€and€to€discard€all€evidence€to€theÐ D!” Ðcontrary.ðð€€ò òòòMiller€v.€Williams,ó óóó€970€S.W.2d€497,€498€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€If€there€is€materialÐ 0"€  Ðevidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€we€must€affirm.€€ò òòòIdó óóó.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àWe€find€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€monetary€awards€in€this€case.€€As€previouslyÐ ô$D # Ðindicated,€Miller,€age€55€at€the€time€of€trial,€incurred€medical€expenses€of€$30,534.91€as€a€result€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðhis€injuries€from€the€fall€ð!ð€injuries€that€the€medical€experts€testified€were€permanent€in€nature.€€HeÐ Ì&"% Ðfurther€presented€evidence€that€he€incurred€a€total€economic€loss€ð!ð€as€discounted€to€present€value€ð!ð€Ð ¸'#& Ðof€$411,846€as€a€result€of€his€inability€to€continue€his€employment.€€Following€his€back€surgery,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐMiller€was€able€to€return€to€work€briefly;€however,€he€continued€to€experience€back€pain,€whichÐ )à$( Ðbegan€to€interfere€with€his€ability€to€climb€on€equipment€and€to€drive€for€long€distances,€duties€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðwere€essential€to€his€job.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àFollowing€Millerððs€neck€surgery,€his€ability€to€work€was€ð ðextremely€hamperedðð;€he€could€noÐ ° Ðlonger€carry€a€briefcase€or€perform€any€repetitive€stooping€or€bending.€€As€before,€his€ability€to€driveÐ œì Ða€long€distance€was€diminished,€this€time€because€of€decreased€mobility€in€his€neck.€€Miller€testifiedÐ ˆØ Ðthat€he€suffered€emotionally€from€his€inability€to€work,€and€that€he€has€seen€a€psychologist€forÐ tÄ Ðdepression.€€Additionally,€the€plaintiffs€indicated€that€Miller€can€no€longer€perform€chores€aroundÐ `° Ðthe€house€and€that€he€cannot€engage€in€his€hobby€of€restoring€automobiles,€an€activity€he€oftenÐ L œ Ðshared€with€his€wife.€€Miller€testified€that€his€mobility€is€limited€to€the€extent€that€his€wife€has€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðhelp€him€put€on€his€socks.€€The€plaintiffs€both€testified€that€their€intimate€life€is€now€limited.€€In€lightÐ $ t Ðof€this€evidence,€we€cannot€say€that€the€verdict€as€remitted€is€excessive.€€There€is€material€evidenceÐ  ` Ðto€support€it.Ð ü L  ÐÌÓ  ÓB.Ð Ô$  ÐÓÑžÓÌà  àBy€way€of€a€separate€issue,€the€plaintiffs€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€remitting€theÐ ¬ü  Ðjuryððs€verdict.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àð ðIn€personal€injury€cases,€calculation€of€damages€is€within€the€province€of€the€jury.ðð€Ð pÀ Ðò òòòGrandstaff€v.€Hawks,€ó óóó36€S.W.3d€482,€499€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€However,€a€trial€court€mayÐ \¬ Ðsuggest€a€remittitur€of€the€verdict€if€it€determines€that€the€verdict€is€excessive.€€òòSee€óóT.C.A.€ðð€20„10„Ð H˜ Ð102(a)€(1994).€€If€the€suggestion€of€a€remittitur€is€refused€by€the€party€in€whose€favor€the€verdict€wasÐ 4„ Ðrendered,€a€new€trial€must€be€granted.€€ò òòòGrandstaff,ó óóó€36€S.W.3d€at€499.€€If€the€remittitur€is€acceptedÐ  p Ðunder€protest,€the€party€may€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€verdict€was€excessive.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó;ò òòòÐ  \ Ðó óóóT.C.A.€ðð€20„10„102(a).Ð øH ÐÌà  àWe€review€a€trial€courtððs€remittitur€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€20„10„Ð Ð  Ð102(b).€€Accordingly,€we€must€determine€whether€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¼  Ðjudgment.€€ò òòòLong€v.€Mattingly,ó óóó€797€S.W.2d€889,€896€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€Upon€reviewing€theÐ ¨ø Ðrecord,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€theÐ ”ä Ðverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€was€excessive€and€that€a€remittitur€was€appropriate€in€this€case.€€ThisÐ €Ð Ðissue€is€found€adversely€to€the€plaintiffs.Ð l¼ ÐÌà@ll)ìàVI.ˆÐ D!” ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€jury€was€not€properly€charged€regarding€the€plaintiffsðð€burden€Ð #l! Ðon€the€issue€of€causation.€€The€plaintiffs€counter€that€the€jury€was€adequately€charged€and€that€evenÐ $X" Ðif€some€errors€were€made,€they€are€not€such€as€to€warrant€a€new€trial.Ð ô$D # ЀÌà  àWe€review€the€jury€charge€in€its€entirety€and€as€a€whole€to€determine€whether€the€trial€judgeÐ Ì&"% Ðcommitted€reversible€error.€€òòò òOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.,ó óóó€850€S.W.2d€439,€446€(Tenn.Ð ¸'#& Ð1992);€òòò òGrissom€v.€Metropolitan€Gov't€of€Nashville,ó óóó€817€S.W.2d€679,€685€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐWe€will€not€invalidate€a€charge€if€it€ð ðfairly€defines€the€legal€issues€involved€in€the€case€and€does€notÐ )à$( Ðmislead€the€jury.ðð€€òòò òOtis,ó óóó€850€S.W.2d€at€446;€òòò òGrissom,ó óóó€817€S.W.2d€at€685.€€Further,€it€is€not€error€forÐ |*Ì%) Ða€trial€court€to€deny€a€requested€instruction€if€its€substance€has€already€been€included€in€otherÐ h+¸&* Ðportions€of€the€charge.€€òòò òOtis,ó óóó€850€S.W.2d€at€445;€òòò òMitchell€v.€Smith,ó óóó€779€S.W.2d€384,€390€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ° ÐApp.€1989).€€ð ðWhere€the€court€correctly€charges€the€law€applicable€to€the€case,€it€is€not€error€to€denyÐ œì Ða€special€request€that€embodies€a€theory€of€a€party€if€the€court€charges€in€general€terms€and€withÐ ˆØ Ðclearness€sound€propositions€of€law€which€would€guide€the€jury€in€reaching€a€correct€decision€in€theÐ tÄ Ðcase.ðð€€òòò òOtis,ó óóó€850€S.W.2d€at€445.€€We€will€not€reverse€a€trial€court€unless€the€failure€to€give€aÐ `° Ðrequested€charge€ð ðmore€probably€than€notðð€affected€the€judgment.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAmong€the€instructions€that€the€defendant€asked€the€trial€court€to€charge€are€(1)€that€causationÐ $ t Ðof€a€medical€condition€must€be€proven€by€expert€testimony€and€that€the€probable€cause€of€the€injuryÐ  ` Ðmust€be€shown€with€reasonable€certainty€and€(2)€the€definition€of€cause€in€fact€and€an€instruction€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€plaintiffs€had€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€defendantððs€negligence€was€the€cause€in€fact€ofÐ è 8  ÐMillerððs€injuries.€€The€defendant€further€requested€that€the€jury€be€charged€that€the€plaintiffs€wereÐ Ô$  Ðrequired€to€show€by€expert€testimony€(1)€that€Millerððs€medical€expenses€were€caused€by€theÐ À  Ðdefendantððs€negligence€and€(2)€that€such€expenses€were€necessary€and€reasonable.€€We€will€addressÐ ¬ü  Ðeach€of€these€requested€instructions€in€turn.Ð ˜è  Ðà  à€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€adequately€charged€the€jury€as€to€causation.€€The€court€told€theÐ pÀ Ðjury€that€it€had€to€determine€whether€the€defendantððs€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€theÐ \¬ Ðplaintiffððs€injuries€before€it€could€find€the€defendant€at€fault.€€The€court€defined€proximate€cause€asÐ H˜ Ðð ða€cause€which€in€natural€and€continuous€sequence€produces€the€injury€and€without€which€the€injuryÐ 4„ Ðwould€not€have€occurred.ðð€€The€latter€part€of€this€definition€ð!ð€ð ðwithout€which€the€injury€would€notÐ  p Ðhave€occurredðð€ð!ð€correctly€identifies€cause€in€fact€as€an€element€of€proximate€cause.€€As€such,€thereÐ  \ Ðwas€no€need€to€give€an€additional€cause€in€fact€instruction€or€otherwise€define€the€term€further.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€defendantððs€proposed€instruction€regarding€the€requirement€that€expert€testimony€onÐ Ð  Ðcausation€be€ð ðreasonably€certainðð€embodies€a€correct€principle€of€law.€€However,€we€do€not€find€thatÐ ¼  Ðit€was€error€not€to€instruct€the€jury€as€to€this€principle.€€That€an€expertððs€testimony€is€ð ðreasonablyÐ ¨ø Ðcertainðð€is€said€to€be€a€prerequisite€to€the€admissibility€of€that€testimony.€€òòSee€ò òLindsey,ó óóó€689€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ðat€862.€€The€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€is€a€matter€of€law€for€the€court,€not€the€jury.€€òòSeeÐ €Ð Ðò òMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transp.,€Inc.,ó óóó€955€S.W.2d€257,€263€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€inÐ l¼ Ðrefusing€to€give€this€instruction.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€jury€should€have€been€instructed€that€the€plaintiffs€wereÐ 0"€  Ðð ðrequired€to€present€competent€expert€medical€proof€that€[Millerððs]€medical€expenses€were€causedÐ #l! Ðby€the€defendant€and€that€the€medical€expenses€were€necessary€and€reasonable.ðð€€It€further€contendsÐ $X" Ðthat€the€jury€should€have€been€charged€that€damages€could€not€be€awarded€for€any€medical€expenseÐ ô$D # Ðnot€proven€by€expert€testimony€to€have€been€caused€by€the€defendantððs€negligence€and€to€be€bothÐ à%0!$ Ðnecessary€and€reasonable.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWe€find€no€reversible€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€give€this€instruction.€€As€we€haveÐ ¤(ô#' Ðalready€discussed,€the€trial€courtððs€charge€adequately€addressed€the€issue€of€the€plaintiffsðð€burden€ofÐ )à$( Ðproving€causation€of€Millerððs€injuries.€€€Moreover,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€charge€leads€us€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðconclude€that€it€adequately€addressed€the€requirement€that€the€plaintiffs€prove€that€the€medicalÐ h+¸&* Ðexpenses€incurred€were€necessary€and€reasonable.€€While€the€court€did€not€instruct€the€jury€that€theÐ ° Ðnecessity€and€reasonableness€of€these€expenses€must€be€established€by€expert€testimony,€we€find€thisÐ œì Ðerror€in€harmless€in€light€of€our€finding,€as€addressed€earlier€in€this€opinion,€that€the€plaintiffsÐ ˆØ Ðadequately€established€those€facts€through€the€expert€testimony€of€Dr.€Schock€and€Dr.€Lister.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@MM(ìàVII.ˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellant,€ChooÐ $ t ÐChoo€Partners,€L.P.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€enforcement€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€and€forÐ  ` Ðcollection€of€costs€assessed€below,€all€pursuant€to€applicable€law.Ð ü L  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGEÔ#†Xû¸XXXû¸-#Ô