East Point Ford Co. v. Lingerfelt, 45545
| Decision Date | 05 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 45545,45545,1 |
| Parties | EAST POINT FORD COMPANY v. Jesse LINGERFELT |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, Atlanta, for appellant.
Beasley, Kahn, Rosser & Kiser, Warren A. Rosser, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Jesse Lingerfelt filed suit in Fulton Superior Court against East Point Ford Company and Steven W. Perry. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was injured on October 16, 1968, when his vehicle was struck from the rear by a vehicle owned by the defendant East Point Ford Company and driven by the defendant's agent, Perry. On the trial of the issues, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint as to the defendant Perry and the case then proceeded against East Point Ford Company as the only defendant.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $11,500 and judgment was duly entered upon such verdict. This is an appeal from the original and amended order of the trial judge overruling the defendant's motion for new trial. Held:
1. (a) Enumeration of error 8 complains of a hypothetical question and enumeration of error 9 complains of the answer elicited on the ground that it is shown that in answering the question the expert witness, who was a psychiatrist, based his response on hearsay and not facts adduced on the trial.
The question which was contained in a deposition introduced on the trial reads as follows: 'Doctor, let me try to rephrase this question to you and ask, based on the head injury that you have described Mr. Lingerfelt received in combat in Viet Nam and assuming that he was involved in an automobile collision in which he was hit from the rear with a severe impact, involving a severe impact of automobiles, and then Mr. Lingerfelt began to have trouble with his speech, began to have headaches, a weakness in his right arm and on one occasion collapsed, what would you say in your medical opinion was the cause of these difficulties?'
Based upon the previous testimony given by the psychiatrist in the deposition, the question involved whether certain injuries described to the psychiatrist by the plaintiff resulted in certain physical impairments or disabilities described to the psychiatrist by the plaintiff. Hence, the psychiatrist was required to give his opinion as to the cause of the plaintiff's physical condition about which the psychiatrist had knowledge only through the history related to him by the plaintiff. The only actual manifestation of prior injury observed by the psychiatrist was the scar on the plaintiff's head.
While other jurisdictions have made a distinction between statements made by a patient to a physician in the course of a physical examination for the purpose of treatment and care of the patient and those made to a physician for the purpose of qualifying him to testify as a medical expert (31 Am.Jur.2d 634, Expert and Opinion Evidence § 108, and cases cited), the Georgia courts have consistently held that statements made to the physician and opinions formed therefrom are inadmissible as hearsay. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Clinard, 93 Ga.App. 64, 66, 90 S.E.2d 923; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Marshall, 93 Ga.App. 134, 137, 91 S.E.2d 96; Paulk v. Thomas, 115 Ga.App. 436, 154 S.E.2d 872. Of course, exceptions are recognized where complaint of pain is made under such circumstances as to be equivalent to spontaneous and involuntary exclamations or physical manifestations of pain and suffering. Code § 38-305; Southern Railway Co. v. Parham, 10 Ga.App. 531(8), 73 S.E. 763. No such showing was made in the case sub judice.
In the Paulk case, supra, 115 Ga.App. p. 442, 154 S.E.2d p. 877, this court considered the following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. Bowen
...to the same effect was introduced, all without further objection by defendant. This shows no error. East Point Ford v. Lingerfelt, 123 Ga.App. 520, 522(1b), 181 S.E.2d 713 (1971). (b) Enumeration 4 contends the testimony of an expert witness for plaintiffs should not have been admitted. No ......
-
McGarr v. McGarr
...v. Thompson, 211 Ga. 734, 88 S.E.2d 402 (1955); Rogers v. Manning, 200 Ga. 844, 38 S.E.2d 724 (1946); East Point Ford v. Lingerfelt, 123 Ga.App. 520, 181 S.E.2d 713 (1971). 3. Appellant complains of the exclusion of a part of his testimony dealing with expenditures of money by appellee afte......
-
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Matthews
...to the automobile accident was based solely on a medical history given to the doctor by appellee. Citing East Point Ford Co. v. Lingerfelt, 123 Ga.App. 520(1a), 181 S.E.2d 713, appellant contends that such testimony constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Although there was no objection to the ad......
- Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Exum