Michalski v. Wagner
100 N.W.2d 354, 1960 Wisc. LEXIS 272, 9 Wis. 2d 22 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For expert medical testimony on the extent of a permanent disability to be admissible, the expert must first establish to a reasonable medical probability, not mere possibility, that the defendant's conduct caused the underlying injury.
Facts:
- On May 3, 1956, the plaintiff, Michalski, was involved in an accident and received first-aid treatment for a contusion, laceration, and abrasion.
- The next day, Michalski experienced pain and sought treatment from Dr. Fine, but did not complain of any neck or back pain.
- After consulting an attorney, Michalski began seeing Dr. Sanfelippo on May 11, 1956, who diagnosed a permanent whiplash injury to his cervical spine.
- In April 1957, Michalski visited the Mayo Clinic, where Dr. Young, an orthopedic surgeon, examined him.
- Dr. Young found a slight subluxation of a cervical vertebra but stated he could only say the accident 'might have caused the condition' and could not determine if another condition was due to the injury or degeneration.
- The defendants' medical expert, Dr. Regan, examined Michalski and concluded that his spinal condition was congenital and not caused by the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Michalski, sued the defendants in a trial court for injuries sustained in an accident.
- During a jury trial, the court excluded a portion of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Young, concerning the extent of permanent disability.
- The trial court also excluded evidence of a $460 bill from the Mayo Clinic because it was not itemized to separate expenses related to the alleged injury from those that were not.
- Following the verdict, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the defendants are the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is expert medical testimony regarding the percentage of a plaintiff's permanent disability admissible when the expert can only testify that the defendant's actions might possibly have caused the underlying condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Currie, J.
No. Expert medical testimony regarding the extent of a disability is not admissible unless a proper foundation is laid establishing causation to a reasonable medical probability. The court reasoned that an expert's opinion must be based on reasonable probability, not mere possibility. Dr. Young testified only that the accident 'might have caused the condition,' which is insufficient to establish causation. Testimony based on mere possibilities leaves the issue in the realm of conjecture and speculation, which cannot form the basis for a finding of fact or an award of damages. Therefore, because the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident probably caused the spinal subluxation, any testimony from Dr. Young about the percentage of permanent disability resulting from that condition was properly excluded.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the evidentiary standard for causation in personal injury cases, clarifying that expert medical testimony must rise above mere speculation. It establishes a clear prerequisite for the admission of evidence on the extent of damages: the plaintiff must first connect the underlying injury to the defendant's actions with a reasonable degree of medical probability. This prevents juries from awarding damages for conditions that are only possibly linked to the tortious conduct, thereby strengthening the burden of proof for plaintiffs and protecting defendants from liability based on conjecture. The case also underscores the plaintiff's duty to clearly prove and segregate recoverable medical expenses from unrelated medical costs.
