CROSS-EXAMINATION IS PERMITTED ON ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE WITNESS’S VERACITY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SUBJECT OF THE FALSEHOOD IS MATERIAL

By W. Dudley McCarter


Elizabeth Mitchell filed a medical negligence action against Dr. Milton Kardesch, alleging that Dr. Kardesch deviated from the standard of care while treating her husband and that Dr. Kardesch’s negligence resulted in her husband’s death. One night, Mr. Mitchell had chest pains and a nightmare about death. The next morning, Mrs. Mitchell called Dr. Kardesch, who was her husband’s internist. She spoke with Dr. Kardesch’s medical assistant and relayed the previous night’s occurrence. Dr. Kardesch’s medical assistant testified that she could not specifically recall Mrs. Mitchell’s call, but that she believed she told Mrs. Mitchell to take her husband to the emergency room because of the chest pain. Dr. Kardesch testified that he remembered Mrs. Mitchell’s call and that he had instructed his assistant to tell her to get her husband to the emergency room. Mrs. Mitchell testified that she was never instructed to take her husband to the emergency room. Fourteen days later, Mr. Mitchell again felt tightness in his chest and went to the hospital. He died the next day from complications arising from myocardial infarction and arteriosclerosis. The trial court prohibited Mrs. Mitchell’s counsel from impeaching Dr. Kardesch with his interrogatory answer in which he had denied that his license had been suspended or revoked.

IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, EVIDENCE MAY BE
PRESENTED ON THE VALUE OF MEDICAL TREATMENT
RECEIVED TO REBUT PRESUMPTION THAT MEDICAL
EXPENSES ARE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID

By W. Dudley McCarter

Delmar Teasley drove his vehicle into the back of a line of vehicles stopped at a traffic signal, causing the vehicle behind Edith Deck to collide with her vehicle. Deck sustained injuries in the collision and underwent surgery, physical therapy and other medical care. Deck was billed $27,991 for her treatment, but the amount actually paid for her treatment, after adjustments, was $9,904. Payments were made by Medicare, supplemental insurance and by Deck. Before the trial on her suit against Teasley, Teasley filed a motion to determine the value of her medical treatment pursuant to Section 490.715.5. At the hearing on Teasley's motion, Deck presented testimony from three individuals who previously or currently worked in healthcare positions involving the cost of providing medical services. Each testified that the amount billed to Deck for her medical treatment was customary, fair and reasonable. They also testified that the face value of the bills was the value of the medical services provided, not the amount reimbursed by Medicare.

Sewer Connection Fee Ordinance was not an Unconstitutional Special Law

By W. Dudley McCarter

In 1996, the City of Sullivan developed a plan to improve its sewer system and install new sewer lines in areas that previously had no sewer access. The City submitted a $3.3 million dollar revenue bond to fund the sewer project, which was approved by the voters. The City adopted an ordinance that established higher sewer connection fees for properties located in areas that did not have sewer service prior to the 1996 improvement project. The sewer connection fees for properties in the new area would be $3,750 (for a gravity connection) or $4,250 (for a pressure connection), compared to connection fees in the existing sewer system area of $60.00 or $75.00, respectively. Judith Ann Sites, who owned property located in an area that previously did not have sewer access, challenged the ordinance as a “special law,” in violation of Missouri Constitution article 3, §40(30). When Sites refused to pay the connection fee, the City filed suit against her. She asserted that the ordinance wrongly created an improper subclass within the larger class of “all new sewer connections” by treating disparately sewer connections for properties located in the newly sewered areas. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the City and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed in City of Sullivan v. Sites, No. SC90866 (Mo.banc 2010).

A Prescription for the Physician-Don’t Meet With Defense Counsel Privately When Your Patient is in a Law Suit

By Stacy G. Jackson


If you are a health care provider practicing in Missouri, you probably have been or will be a witness in litigation. Workers’ compensation claims, personal injury or medical malpractice; chances are one of your patients has filed a personal injury claim. As a treating physician or health care provider, your opinions are vital. After you receive medical authorizations and records requests, your office will probably receive a phone call from the attorneys for the defendant, wanting to know what you know about your patient in regard to the litigation. They may even tell you that this is a good way to avoid a deposition: an informal meeting just to get your opinions. It seems easier than a deposition and, after all, it is perfectly okay in Missouri. Or at least, it was!