 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arnsdorff v. Fortner10/18/2005
nsdorff relies on Hossain v. Nelson for the proposition that the introduction of the summary of the bills constituted reversible error. In Hossain, we concluded that a medical bill summary was inadmissible where the plaintiff did not lay the proper foundation for its introduction because he testified that he could not compile the totals or substantiate the various subtotals. In this case, unlike Hossain, Fortner testified as to the amount of the hospital bill, that the amount of the expenses as reflected on the hospital bill received after his discharge was correct and that the expenses were incurred in connection with this hospitalization that resulted from the accident. Additionally, Arnsdorff was not denied the opportunity to cross-examine Fortner as to his amount of medical expenses. Accordingly, we find no error.
4. In his last enumeration of error, Arnsdorff contends the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his motion for a mistrial after Fortner testified about medical matters in violation of the trial court's order on Arnsdorff's motion in limine. We disagree.
The order granting Arnsdorff's motion precluded testimony referencing conversations between Fortner and his treating physicians. This enumeration of error is based on the following colloquy: "Q. Why was it you were having difficulty walking and why are you having difficulty walking today? A. They said that I got a nerve damage , and they said it's because . . . ." Arnsdorff objected on the ground that the testimony violated the in limine order, Fortner's counsel withdrew the question, and the objection was sustained. The order granting Arnsdorff's motion in limine did exclude the testimony at issue. But to warrant reversal on this ground, Arsndorff must also show that the violation of the order caused him harm.
Arnsdorff argues that he was harmed because there was no medical evidence offered in support of Fortner's testimony, and therefore, the jury could have concluded that Fortner suffered permanent nerve damage. If the only evidence of injury in this case pertained to Fortner's foot, we might be inclined to conclude that this testimony harmed Arnsdorff's case. However, in light of the plethora of evidence concerning Fortner's life-threatening injuries, his debilitated state, and his lengthy rehabilitation process, we cannot find harm. Additionally, there was other evidence in the record to which Arnsdorff did not object that Fortner sustained an injury to his foot. Fortner testified that he had "drop" foot, which required that he wear a brace and that he did not know how long he would have to wear the brace. Fortner's orthopaedic surgeon testified that Fortner told him that his foot was bothering him but opined that Fortner would not need surgery for the injury. Therefore, this argument lacks merit.
Arnsdorff also argues that the testimony of Carol Jones, Fortner's sister and one of his caregivers, violated the order on the motion in limine. Jones testified as to her observations of Fortner's course of treatment during his hospitalization. "One who complains that the opposing party violated a court's order on a motion in limine must show that the court ruled so as to limit the evidence in the particulars claimed." The order granting Arnsdorff's motion precluded testimony referencing conversations between Fortner and his treating physicians. Therefore, the order did not apply to Jones's testimony. Furthermore, Arndorff points to no evidence in the record that he moved for a mistrial related to Jones's testimony. Accordingly, this argument fails as well.
Judgment affirmed. Phipps, J., concurs. Andrews, P. J., concurs in judgment only.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|