Gerald A. Smith v. Francisco Jose Creech and Walter Creech

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals considered an appeal arising from a negligence action involving a collision between a vehicle and a stopped school bus. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the reasonableness of medical expenses incurred after March 19, 2020, and that the district court improperly excluded evidence concerning the plaintiff’s other medical conditions. It reversed and remanded for amendment of the judgment and a new trial on general damages.

Holdings

1. The district court should have granted a directed verdict for the defendants on medical expenses incurred after March 19, 2020, because Smith presented no evidence that those charges were reasonable.
2. The district court abused its discretion by excluding all evidence of Smith's preexisting and subsequent medical issues merely because the defendants lacked expert testimony connecting those issues to the asserted damages.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Dr. Mattingly's surveillance-based opinions because the videos lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and Dr. Mattingly could not confirm that they accurately depicted Smith.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Dr. Mattingly's biomechanical opinions under the expert-disclosure requirements because the defendants did not adequately disclose those opinions and Dr. Mattingly lacked a formal background in biomechanics.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred by denying the defendants' motion for a directed verdict on medical expenses incurred after March 19, 2020, when Smith offered evidence of necessity and causation but no evidence that the charges were reasonable.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Smith's preexisting and subsequent medical issues that the defendants could not connect to the claimed damages through expert testimony.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Mattingly's opinions based on surveillance footage.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Mattingly's biomechanical opinions under the expert-disclosure requirements.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded