Schaeffer v. Craden, 58319

Decision Date11 December 1990
Docket NumberNo. 58319,58319
CitationSchaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165 (Mo. App. 1990)
PartiesMartha B. SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel CRADEN, et al., Defendant-Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Coggan R. Mills, Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kortenhof & Ely, Eric A. Ruttencutter, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.

Richard C. Homire, St. Louis, for respondent American Family Mut. Ins. Co.

KAROHL, Judge.

Plaintiff, Martha Schaeffer, appeals from a jury verdict of $2,500 in her favor against defendants, Daniel Craden and American Mutual Insurance Company. Schaeffer sued defendants for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision with Craden. Schaeffer claims the trial court erred in excluding evidence of her unpaid medical bills because this evidence was competent, relevant and material. We affirm.

On September 1, 1986, Schaeffer was driving south on Hanley Road in St. Louis County. Craden was also traveling south on Hanley Road. Hanley Road, which has four lanes, becomes Laclede Station Road where it intersects with Litzsinger. Schaeffer was near the Litzsinger intersection in the curblane when Craden's pick-up truck came into her lane and sideswiped her automobile. The impact caused Schaeffer to hit her head on a satchel containing silverware.

Schaeffer did not seek emergency medical attention. As a result of the collision, Schaeffer experienced severe headaches and ringing in her ears. Several days later she went to a hospital emergency room with these complaints. Dr. Jones, the emergency room physician, referred Schaeffer to Dr. Sharp. After examining Schaeffer, Dr. Sharp diagnosed the ringing in her ears as tinnitus. Schaeffer also consulted an eye doctor, and doctors Horenstein, Rifkin, Weiss and Eckert. She testified she paid Dr. Sharp $450, Dr. Jones $125, Dr. Horenstein $325, Dr. Rifkin $200, Dr. Weiss $250, Dr. Eckert $130 and prescription expenses of approximately $200. These bills total $1,680.

At trial the only medical expert testimony presented by Schaeffer was a video deposition of Dr. Sharp. His testimony supported a finding of causation between the collision and the medical complaints of headaches and tinnitus. Dr. Sharp also testified to the necessity and reasonableness of his expenses and two magnetic reasonance imaging [MRI] tests prescribed by Dr. Weiss and given to Schaeffer. The $1,470 bill for these tests was not paid. Dr. Horenstein testified for defendants. He, of course, testified as to the reasonableness of his charges to Schaeffer.

Schaeffer's sole point on appeal is trial court erred by excluding evidence of unpaid medical bills incurred by Schaeffer because this evidence was "competent, relevant and material." In support of her point relied upon, Schaeffer alleges additional claims of trial court error. However, because these claims of error are not contained in Schaeffer's point relied upon, they are not properly preserved for appeal. Rule 84.04.

Recovery for medical expenses incurred as a result of defendant's negligence in a personal injury action depends upon proof of the necessity and reasonableness of the medical expenses incurred. Spica v. McDonald, 334 S.W.2d 365, 371 (Mo. banc 19...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • Gorostieta v. Parkinson
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 15 Diciembre 2000
    ...that statute provides medical bills are admissible as evidence of necessary, fair, and reasonable charges); Schaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (holding that recovery for medical expenses incurred as result of accident depends on proof of necessity and reasonableness);......
  • Hollis v. Blevins
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 24 Julio 1996
    ...of the medical expenses incurred." Hagedorn v. Adams, 854 S.W.2d 470, 477[18-19] (Mo.App.1993). To similar effect see Schaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo.App.1990). Instruction 14 In these instructions you are told to itemize any damages you determine by the categories set forth in......
  • Hagedorn v. Adams
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Marzo 1993
    ...in a personal injury action depends upon proof of the necessity and reasonableness of the medical expenses incurred. Schaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo.App.1990). However, a valid stipulation dispenses with the necessity of proof of matters stipulated and the party who stipulates ......
  • Fink v. Foley-Belsaw Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 5 Enero 1993
    ...because Foley would be potentially liable only for those medical expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred. Schaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (citations omitted). Payment is some evidence of both necessity and reasonableness. While the questions went beyond what w......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Section 2 Incurred Expenses
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Damages Deskbook Chapter 2 Medical, Hospital, and Related Damages
    • Invalid date
    ...necessary medical and hospital services incurred as a result of the defendant’s negligence, whether paid or unpaid. Schaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). In other words, to recover medical and hospital expenses, it is not necessary to show payment of the expenses bu......
  • Section 15 As to Reasonable Value
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Damages Deskbook Chapter 2 Medical, Hospital, and Related Damages
    • Invalid date
    ...or reasonableness. Substantial evidence of reasonableness, though, may be inferred from payment of such bills. Schaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165 (Mo. App. E.D....
  • Section 11 Substantive Evidence of Reasonableness and Necessity
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Damages Deskbook Chapter 2 Medical, Hospital, and Related Damages
    • Invalid date
    ...in a personal injury action depends on proof of the necessity and reasonableness of the medical expenses incurred. Schaeffer v. Craden, 800 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). There must be substantial evidence that the charges were reasonable and represent services that were reasonably n......