93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 5/4/94, Sattler v. Hammond

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Citation: 93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 5/4/94, Sattler v. Hammond, 640 So.2d 570 (La. App. 1994)
• Decision Date: 04 May 1994
• Parties: 93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir

Page 570

640 So.2d 570

93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 5/4/94

Stanley SATTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmie S. HAMMOND and Con Agra Broiler Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-1227.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Third Circuit.

May 4, 1994.

Writ Denied Sept. 16, 1994.

Charles Raymond Whitehead, Jr., and Charles Raymond Whitehead, III, Natchitoches, for Stanley Sattler.

Ronald E. Corkern, Jr., Natchitoches, for Jimmie S. Hammond, etc.

Before YELVERTON and THIBODEAUX, JJ., and CULPEPPER, ^* J. Pro Tem. [93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 1] WILLIAM A. CULPEPPER, Judge Pro Tem.

This is a suit for personal injury and property damages arising out of a two-vehicle collision. On June 28, 1991, Jimmie S. Hammond, while in the course and scope of his employment with Con Agra Broiler Company, Inc. (Con Agra), and while operating a Con Agra truck, crossed the centerline of Louisiana Hwy. 118 and crashed into the left side of a truck which Stanley Sattler was operating. Sattler filed suit against Hammond and Con Agra.

The parties stipulated to liability, and the case was tried before a jury on the issue of personal injury [93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 2] damages. It was not disputed that plaintiff-Sattler sustained injuries to his left wrist and hand in the accident. Plaintiff also asserted that he suffered stress, a myocardial infarction or heart attack, and depression caused by the accident or for which the accident was an aggravating or contributing factor. The jury awarded plaintiff $30,000 in general damages and $38,500 in special damages; the jury found that the myocardial infarction was not related to the accident of June 28, 1991.

Plaintiff appeals, alleging that (1) the trial court erred in refusing to allow Dr. George Seiden, plaintiff's treating psychiatrist who is board certified in psychiatry and neurology with a PhD in physiology, to testify about the medical effects of emotional and mental stress and strain on the human heart; (2) the jury erred in failing to find that the collision was one of the trigger events that contributed to plaintiff's myocardial infarction and increased his disability after the accident; and (3) the jury awarded inadequate damages and erred in failing to award plaintiff damages for his myocardial infarction.

GENERAL FACTS

Plaintiff, age forty-seven or forty-eight at the time of the accident, was self-employed as a logging contractor. On June 28, 1991, defendant-Hammond crossed the centerline into plaintiff's lane of travel and crashed into the left side of the eighteen-wheeler log truck which plaintiff was operating. Both trucks overturned.

Plaintiff sustained cuts on his left hand and torn ligaments in his wrist. He was also diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in his left hand following the accident. Plaintiff eventually underwent surgery on his left hand and wrist to fuse wrist bones and release the [93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 3] carpal tunnel. He sustained a 20% permanent disability to his upper extremities.

Plaintiff also sustained cuts on his left elbow and shoulder as well as neck pain from the accident. However, these injuries apparently resolved themselves shortly after the accident.

Plaintiff contends that, following the accident, he began having nightmares and difficulty operating a vehicle. He testified he had flashbacks and became irritable. Plaintiff argues that as a result of the accident he experienced post-traumatic stress disorder, suffered a myocardial infarction and depression.

MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION

Plaintiff suffered a myocardial infarction on May 5, 1992, just over ten months after the accident. At trial, plaintiff sought to relate stress from the accident to the subsequent myocardial infarction. In support of his position, plaintiff sought to introduce the testimony of Dr. George Seiden on the effects of trauma induced emotional stress and strains on the human heart. Dr. Seiden, plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, is a medical doctor, a board certified psychiatrist and a neurologist with a PhD in physiology. (Dr. Seiden defined physiology as the study of the normal function of the human body.)

The trial court did not allow testimony from Dr. Seiden to be entered regarding the heart condition and the effects of stress thereon, finding that this was beyond the scope of Dr. Seiden's expertise. Plaintiff contends that this was error.

LSA-C.E. art. 702 provides:

[93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 4] "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

Although LSA-C.E. art. 702 et seq. has generally relaxed heretofore stringent requirements before witnesses may qualify as experts, greatly facilitating the use of expert testimony, the trial court still retains broad discretion as to whether expert testimony should be admitted, particularly in jury trials. O'Neal v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc., 580 So.2d 706 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991) citing LSA-C.E. art. 702 comment (d). However, generally, the fact that a medical doctor is not a specialist in a particular field applies only to the effect or weight to be given such testimony, not to its admissibility. Matter of Aaron, 417 So.2d 105 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982); State v. Gremillion, 529 So.2d 497 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988), reversed on other grounds, 542 So.2d 1074 (La.1989). See also by example, Pereira v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling, 620 So.2d 315 (La.App. 4th Cir.1993). We are of the opinion that the trial court should have allowed Dr. Seiden to testify on the effects of stress on the heart. The failure to do so was not harmless error. However, after a de novo review of the record, including Dr. Seiden's proffered testimony, we agree with the jury that the evidence does not preponderate that the accident and resulting stress caused or contributed to the heart attack.

Apparently referring to studies indicating an increased incidence of heart disease, infectious disease, and death following stress and depression, Dr. Seiden stated that theoretically he would say that there is evidence that the accident could have caused or contributed to plaintiff's [93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 5] heart attack. However, he also stated that he did not know whether the accident caused or contributed to plaintiff's heart attack, qualifying this answer by agreeing that no medical doctor could tell someone that. Dr. Seiden thought that the "literature" would indicate the stress of the accident increased plaintiff's risk of having a heart attack.

Dr. Mitchell Howard Weiss, the cardiologist who performed a balloon coronary angioplasty on plaintiff on May 5, 1992, testified that it is believed that a myocardial infarction occurs in the setting of coronary atherosclerosis or a narrowing and hardening of the coronary arteries. Dr. Weiss testified that he suspected that plaintiff had begun to develop coronary arteriosclerosis at some point in time prior to the myocardial infarction and that on the day of plaintiff's myocardial infarction one of the arteriosclerotic plaques had ruptured or fissured which led to the acute development of an occlusive blood clot which caused the myocardial infarction.

Dr. Weiss was of the opinion that there are certain risk factors for the development of coronary arteriosclerosis and that most authorities in the field would feel that mental or psychological stress is not an established risk factor for coronary artery disease. Rather, he was of the opinion that mental or psychological stress was, at best, a possible risk factor. Therefore, he concluded that the automobile accident did not cause the plaintiff to develop coronary arteriosclerosis. Dr. Weiss was of the opinion that there was a trigger that existed probably many years prior to "that" and "things" came together on May 5, 1992, to cause plaintiff's myocardial infarction. He did not think he could say one way or the other that mental emotional stress could accelerate, contribute to, or speed up coronary arteriosclerosis. However, he noted [93-1227 La.App. 3 Cir. 6] "[a]nything's possible."

Dr. Henry Gorman Hanley, a cardiologist and chief of cardiology for LSU Medical Center, as well as chief of the cardiology section of the department of internal medicine for the medical...