Finding of Reasonableness and Necessity Not Mandated
In Hach v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. (2008AP1510), the
plaintiff moved for a directed verdict regarding past medical
expenses. The plaintiff's argument relied upon the language of
Hanson v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WI 97, which
states that if a plaintiff is injured and the plaintiff used
reasonable and ordinary care in selecting his physicians, then
the plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to the amount his
past medical expenses. The trial court granted the motion. The
court of appeals reversed the trial court. The appellate court
found that the defendant's experts had disputed the full extent
of the past medical expenses.
This case involved the plaintiff claiming injury as a result of
a rear-end auto accident. The plaintiff's physician testified
that all the past medical expenses were reasonable and necessary
as a result of the accident. The defendant offered the
testimony of two expert witnesses, Dr. James Stiehl and Dr.
Gerald Harris. Dr. Stiehl testified that the plaintiff may have
been reasonably treated for three months after the accident.
After that point, the treatment was not related to the accident.
Dr. Harris completed a biomechanical evaluation and testified
that "other than transient pain and stiffness, there's no
biomechanical evidence that there would be a neck injury."
In overturning the trial court, the appellate court noted that
while the defendant had conceded some level of injury, causation
was still disputed on a variety of grounds. Since there was
conflicting evidence as to the extent of the injuries and the
past medical expenses, the plaintiff was not entitled to a
directed verdict.
