ILNews

Admittance of psychologist's testimony requires new trial

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a negligence suit due to a car accident after finding the trial court shouldn’t have allowed a psychologist to testify the plaintiff got a brain injury as a result of the accident.

In Henry C. Bennett, et al. v. John E. Richmond, et al., No. 20A03-0906-CV-285, Henry Bennett and his employer Schupan & Sons appealed the denial of their motion to correct error after a jury awarded John and Jennifer Richmond $200,000 in damages for John’s suit that Bennett’s negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries.

While acting within the scope of his employment, Bennett rear-ended John, which caused John’s neck and back injuries. He underwent treatment and then got a back injury while at work seven months later, which exacerbated the injuries he sustained in the car accident.

John underwent a neuropsychological evaluation with Dr. Sheridan McCabe, a psychologist, who testified John sustained a brain injury from the car accident. McCabe reviewed John’s medical records, his deposition in the instant litigation, interviewed John and his wife, and administered neuropsychological tests.

Bennett wanted to exclude McCabe’s testimony on the basis that he isn’t competent to testify regarding a medical diagnosis. The trial court allowed his testimony and also denied Bennett’s motion to correct error after the jury verdict in John’s favor.

The Court of Appeals reversed because McCabe isn’t a medical doctor, and the evaluation of a brain injury, while within the doctor’s field of expertise, is distinct from the determination of a medical cause of the injury. McCabe only testified that in his professional continuing education courses, he has touched on subjects relating to the evaluation of traumatic brain injuries and that he received referrals from two neurologists, wrote Judge Edward Najam.

No medical doctor or other qualified practitioner ever diagnosed John with a brain injury. The trial court abused its discretion in allowing McCabe to testify that John got the brain injury from the accident.

“The trial court should have exercised its discretion as gatekeeper prior to trial to exclude Dr. McCabe’s proffered causation testimony based upon his lack of qualifications to give such testimony,” Judge Najam wrote.

The admission of the testimony was not a harmless error. The evidence regarding the Richmonds’ damages other than the alleged brain injury isn’t sufficient to support the jury verdict.

The judges remanded for a new trial in which McCabe’s testimony is inadmissible absent testimony by a qualified expert that John suffered a brain injury in the car accident.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT