In April of 2008, the Court of Appeals in Michigan heard a case that involved a woman involved in a car accident in October of 2003 where she claims she suffered a traumatic brain injury. (See TBCI PC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 2008 WL 4367530 (Mich.App.).
In TBCI, Ms. Shaholaa was involved in a car accident in October of 2003 where she claims she suffered a brain injury. Id. The bench trial held that she had not suffered a brain injury and she appealed. This Appellate Court sustained the trial court’s decision. Id.
On October 1, 2003, Ms. Shaholla was struck on the driver’s side door. The ambulance arrived. She was listed as alert and taken to the emergency room. Id. She was listed as having a closed head injury and low back pain. Id. She denied any loss of consciousness. Id. Two days later she saw a chiropractor. Id. She then was referred to a physiatrist who she saw on November 25, 2003. Id. Six weeks after the accident. Id. The notes indicated the low back pain. Id. The doctor reviewed an MRI that revealed a herniation in the L5-S1 region. Id. The doctor’s diagnosis was a traumatic brain injury along with others diagnoses. Id. She was referred to a neuropsychologist for further testing. Id.
The defense put forward evidence that Plaintiff failed to disclose a prior back injury. Id. Further, the defense in this car accident case put forward taped surveillance showing Plaintiff engaged in activities she claimed she could not do. Id.
Plaintiff for this car accident put on testimony from the neuropsychologist where he claimed she suffered from a head injury; ie. post traumatic brain injury. Id. Then the chiropractor sent Plaintiff to TBCI where a board certified psychiatrist treated Plaintiff in June of 2004 until January of 2006 where she racked up a bill of over $62,000. Id. Defense attorneys for this car accident put experts on the stand that said the work done by the psychiatrist was excessive and not necessary. Id.
The Court then reviewed the applicable law in a car accident case like this and when and how a medical provider should be reimbursed. “An insurer is not liable for any medical expense to the extent that it is not a reasonable charge for a particular product or service…” Id. After reviewing all the testimony and records this Court was satisfied that Plaintiff did not suffer a closed head injury. Id. The Court weighed the testimony of the doctors that testified and who had and did not have scientific credibility. Id. The Court found that some of the testing showed gross inconsistencies and evidence. Id. And that there were really no documents or evidence of head trauma but for the Plaintiff’s own subjective testimony that she hurt her head. Id. And that all of the doctors that treated her were basing their evaluations and tests off of the subjective complaints of the Plaintiff car accident driver. Id.
Accordingly, this Court like a Kentucky car accident Court would do, dismissed the case against the Plaintiff who only put forward evidence of her injuries based on her subjective complaints and doctors testimony and diagnoses based on those complaints.
If you have been the subject of a Kentucky car accident matter, please call and speak to a Kentucky car accident lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!