Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man’s negligence claims for a 2018 car accident only apply to a shoulder injury sustained in the crash and not to pain from any pre-existing injuries or ailments, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled Monday in affirming a trial court’s grant of motion for judgment on the evidence.
In October 2018, Jeffery Lindke was about to make a left turn in Mishawaka when David Combs rear-ended Lindke’s truck.
Lindke didn’t report any injuries or pain at the time of the accident to law enforcement or to Combs, nor did he immediately seek medical treatment.
In June 2020, Lindke filed a complaint against Combs on claims of negligence and loss of consortium.
The St. Joseph Superior Court held a jury trial in October 2022 on Lindke’s complaint.
At the trial, Lindke claimed that he had sustained injuries in the form of migraine headaches, aggravation of pain from pre-existing conditions in his lower back and legs and pain in his neck and hands.
Lindke also sought damages for a labral tear to his right shoulder.
Combs conceded fault in the collision and stipulated the admissibility of summaries of Lindke’s medical treatment and billing records.
The evidence admitted at trial showed Lindke had past experience of severe headaches and pain in his lower back and legs prior to the collision.
Combs moved for judgment on the evidence, seeking to remove from the jury’s consideration all injuries and damages except those related to Lindke’s right shoulder injury, arguing that Lindke had failed to offer sufficient evidence of causation related to any other injury.
The trial court granted Combs’ motion and subsequently provided the jury with a final instruction that it could only award damages for pain and suffering that were supported by the evidence and that it could only consider the medical expenses supported by orthopedic surgeon Charles Ware’s testimony.
The jury returned zero-dollar verdicts on Lindke’s remaining claims.
Lindke brought one issue to the appellate court.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it entered judgment on the evidence on some of Lindke’s claims due to insufficient evidence of causation.
Lindke contended that the trial court erred when it granted Combs’ motion for judgment on the evidence on all his claims except for those based on the injury to his right shoulder.
The appellate disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion when it granted Combs’ motion.
The appellate court’s opinion noted the trial court did not allow Lindke’s claims of pain in his head, back, legs, neck, and hands to go before the jury.
Unlike the objective injury of the labral tear to Lindke’s right shoulder, these were subjective complaints that related to areas of Lindke’s body that were afflicted with pre-existing conditions which were long-term, ongoing, and some of which were involved in Lindke’s disability rating.
Therefore, Lindke was required to present medical expert testimony to link those subjective injuries to the Oct. 31, 2018, collision, the opinion stated.
“In reviewing the grant of a motion for judgment on the evidence, we apply the same standard as the trial court: We review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote.
The appellate court held that Lindke failed to prove the element of causation on his claimed subjective injuries, and he failed to present sufficient evidence linking his subjective injuries involving pre-existing conditions to the collision.
The case is Jeffery Lindke v. David Combs, 22A-CT-2662.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.