Preveden v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 August 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 31162.,31162. |
| Parties | PREVEDEN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Bert Fesler, Judge.
Action by Francis R. Preveden against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and, from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Snyder, Gale & Richards and Edmund T. Montgomery, all of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Roderick Dunn, of Duluth, for respondent.
This is an appeal from the order of the district court of St. Louis county, denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial after a verdict was rendered therein for the plaintiff.
The action was brought to recover thirteen installments claimed to be due under disability riders attached to two $10,000 life insurance policies issued by the defendant to the plaintiff in Illinois in April, 1928. By the terms of each rider plaintiff was to receive $100 a month upon the defendant's receipt of due proof that, "* * * the insured has, * * * become totally and permanently disabled, as the result of bodily injury or disease occurring and originating after the issuance of said Policy, so as to be prevented thereby from engaging in any occupation and performing any work for compensation or profit * * *."
Plaintiff, a man 46 years of age, by reason of an accident March 5, 1934, claims that he was totally and permanently disabled so as to be entitled to the payments provided for under the terms of the above disability clauses. He testified that on the day in question the walks and streets in the city of Duluth, Minn., were slippery, due to snow and ice, and that while he was descending a hill, he slipped and fell several times. It is also his claim that he suffered a head injury in falling, which has led to a gradual deafness upon which he bases his right to receive total and permanent disability benefits from the defendant.
It appears that the plaintiff has devoted nearly his entire life to the study and teaching of languages, and at the time of the accident he was teaching in a school in Duluth. He testified that he has not been able to teach since he lost his hearing. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,600, representing $200 a month for the period from December 1, 1934, to January 1, 1936.
Defendant contends that the learned trial court committed error in admitting, over defendant's objections, the testimony of certain medical witnesses. We think this point is well taken. Dr. Hayden testified that he examined the plaintiff several times but did not examine him at any time for the purpose of treating him for loss of hearing. He was permitted to give his opinion as to the probable cause of the plaintiff's deafness, its nature and degree, and also its permanency. This opinion was based partly on the statements of the plaintiff made to the witness in relating the history of the case and the various symptoms of which he complained, and partly on the result of certain tests which the witness had given the plaintiff. The witness was permitted to relate what the statements were that the plaintiff made to him, and also to describe fully the nature of the tests given and the results reached.
It is obvious that Dr. Hayden was consulted for the purpose of qualifying him to testify. He stated on the stand that he was not consulted for the purpose of treatment. The opinion of a physician or surgeon as to the condition of an injured or diseased person, based wholly or in part on the history of the case as told to him by the latter on a personal examination, is inadmissible where the examination was made for the purpose of qualifying the physician or surgeon to testify as a medical expert. Faltico v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co., 198 Minn. 88, 268 N.W. 857; 65 A.L.R. 1217, 1219. The circumstances under which the descriptive statements of a sick or injured person as to the symptoms and effects of his malady and the opinion of the expert witness based thereon are admissible are stated in Sund v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 164 Minn. 24, 26, 204 N.W. 628, as follows: (Citing cases.)
The danger of admitting such testimony is apparent. When a doctor is consulted for the purpose of treatment, it may safely be assumed that the patient will tell the truth to the doctor since he is interested primarily in being cured. However, when he goes to a doctor for the purpose of qualifying the latter to testify, the natural tendency and inducement would be to the contrary.
The same might be said for the tests given by Dr. Hayden to the plaintiff. They were not for the purpose of enabling him to treat the plaintiff, and they depended almost entirely upon the subjective reactions of the patient. While the opinion of the doctor based thereon might be entirely correct, there is no method of determining if the reactions themselves were bona fide or feigned.
We have referred only to the testimony of Dr. Hayden. Similar error was committed in admitting the testimony of other medical witnesses but it is unnecessary to make specific reference thereto. What has already been said will govern the admission of such testimony in the event of another trial. With reference to this possibility, it is necessary to discuss other errors assigned by the defendant.
It is claimed that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to what constitutes total and permanent disability within the meaning of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial