{ "id": 3832508, "name": "DAWN FELBER, Indiv. and as Next Friend of Hannah Hildebrandt, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY LONDON, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Felber ex rel. of Hildebrandt v. London", "decision_date": "2004-01-30", "docket_number": "No. 2-02-1226", "first_page": "188", "last_page": "193", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "346 Ill. App. 3d 188" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "192 Ill. 2d 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 453258 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" }, { "page": "60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/192/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 Ill. App. 3d 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3718830 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/343/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 Ill. App. 3d 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1472329 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "571" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/329/0562-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 608, "char_count": 12854, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.11441979821989622 }, "sha256": "007f6e02e3a478fdc3daaf2e81c6f3f229abe2419436f8d23c138503fd4d9a43", "simhash": "1:9865a7aa574b08f3", "word_count": 2098 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:33.584383+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DAWN FELBER, Indiv. and as Next Friend of Hannah Hildebrandt, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY LONDON, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McLAREN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Dawn Felber, in her own capacity and as next friend of her minor daughter, Hannah Hildebrandt, appeals from the trial court\u2019s orders denying her posttrial motion and entering judgment in favor of defendant, Kelly London. We affirm.\nOn February 20, 1999, Felber and Hildebrandt were in Felber\u2019s car, stopped at an intersection, when London hit them from behind. Felber brought a two-count complaint against London, alleging that London\u2019s negligence caused Felber and Hildebrandt to suffer personal injury and pecuniary loss. A jury found in favor of London and against Felber. The trial court denied Felber\u2019s posttrial motion, and this appeal followed.\nFelber contends on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing London to inquire at trial about prior injuries that Felber had suffered to her back and neck. In general, the admission of evidence lies within the trial court\u2019s discretion, and we will not disturb a trial court\u2019s ruling unless the court abuses its discretion. Maffett v. Bliss, 329 Ill. App. 3d 562, 571 (2002). An abuse of discretion will be found only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Junky v. Perry, 343 Ill. App. 3d 230, 234 (2003).\nDuring pretrial discovery, the trial court set deadlines for the parties to disclose the identity and opinions of expert witnesses. While Felber disclosed Dr. Richard Feeley as her expert before her deadline, London missed her deadline and moved for leave to disclose her expert only after another 11 months had passed. Felber objected to London\u2019s motion, and the court barred London from disclosing any new medical witnesses. However, the court did allow London to make disclosures of witnesses who had already been disclosed by Felber. London subsequently disclosed that she might call \u201cany and all of the medical witnesses\u201d disclosed by Felber and that those witnesses would testify that Felber suffered from preexisting and permanent injuries before the collision. These witnesses would also testify that the collision did not aggravate those injuries, nor was it the proximate cause of Felber\u2019s claimed injuries.\nFelber filed a motion in limine seeking to bar London from presenting any evidence regarding a 1997 auto accident involving Felber and any injuries she might have sustained in it. The court granted this motion in part and barred London from asking any questions regarding any prior auto accidents. However, the court also denied the motion in part and allowed London to inquire about Felber\u2019s medical condition from January 1, 1998, to the time of trial.\nThe case was then tried to a jury. Felber testified that she sought treatment from a chiropractor for shoulder and neck pain from February to September 1998. She began treatment with Dr. Feeley in November 1998. At that time, she still complained of \u201csome neck problem.\u201d Dr. Feeley\u2019s course of treatment included osteopathic manipulation, acupuncture, and nutritional supplements. By the end of 1998, her neck problem had improved, although she was \u201cstill having problems\u201d with her neck during the first six weeks of 1999. Felber saw Dr. Feeley on February 18, 1999. At that time, her neck was \u201cfeeling pretty good.\u201d She did not experience daily pain in her neck or frequent numbness or weakness in her hands or arms.\nOn February 20, 1999, Felber was stopped at a stop sign when her car was struck by London\u2019s car. She described the collision as a \u201chuge bang\u201d and stated that her body \u201cmoved forward\u201d at the impact. She was wearing a neck brace at the time of the collision. Dr. Feeley had prescribed the brace for use when she was a passenger, but she decided to wear it when she drove her car. Felber went to the emergency room, where she began to experience pain in the back of her head, in her neck, between her shoulder blades, and in her lower back. She had not experienced the back pain before the collision.\nFelber saw Dr. Feeley on February 22, 1999. Dr. Feeley suggested that she continue her treatment of manipulation, acupuncture, and nutritional supplements. He also prescribed muscle relaxants and more frequent visits, and, in April, he prescribed physical therapy. While the therapy helped \u201cin many regards,\u201d Felber had to return for additional therapy in 2000 and 2001.\nStarting in the spring of 1999, Felber also experienced numbness in her fingers, hands, and arms. These sensations sometimes prevented her from sleeping. As of trial, Felber was still being treated by Dr. Feeley. She still experienced problems between her shoulders and, occasionally, tenseness in her neck.\nOn cross-examination, Felber testified that she began seeing the chiropractor after she experienced neck pain when she turned her head while backing her car out of the garage. She also experienced \u201can achy feeling\u201d in her neck a couple of weeks after riding a roller coaster in August 1998. In October 1998, she began physical therapy, including ultrasound and massage treatment, for her neck and back. Felber then began treatment with Dr. Feeley in November 1998. She stated that she had complained to Dr. Feeley of pain in her neck and up to the back of her head. In the year prior to the collision, she had \u201c[r]arely\u201d experienced numbness in her hands, and she did not experience numbness in her hands and arms immediately after the collision. The treatments she received from Dr. Feeley both before and after the collision were \u201c[v]ery similar.\u201d She had ongoing complaints of neck pain prior to the collision and she was \u201cnot entirely\u201d cured or symptom-free before the collision. She anticipated that she would have had to continue her treatments even if the collision had never occurred.\nFelber had been wearing a neck brace since Dr. Feeley had prescribed it in December 1998. While Dr. Feeley told her to use it when she was a passenger in a car, she also used it occasionally while doing housework and regularly while driving. She stopped wearing the brace in March 1999.\nAlthough Felber had not been to a chiropractor since September 1998, she did call Dr. Johnson, the chiropractor who had treated her previously, in May 1999. She told Dr. Johnson that she was involved in a traffic accident and asked him if she had a preexisting condition.\nLondon testified that, on the morning of the collision, she was driving at no more than 15 miles per hour as she approached Felber\u2019s car, which was stopped at a stop sign approximately one-half block from London\u2019s home. As she applied her brakes and slowed down, her car slid about 50 feet before hitting Felber. London described the impact with Felber\u2019s car as \u201clight,\u201d and noted that the airbag in her car did not deploy when the collision occurred. Felber\u2019s car did not move forward when it was hit, and the two cars were still touching when they came to rest. London did not notice any damage to either car.\nLondon asked Felber why she was wearing a neck brace at the time of the collision. Felber told her that she had injured her neck a year before and wore the brace \u201cfor prophylaxis to prevent any further injury from pot holes in the road.\u201d\nDr. Feeley testified via an evidence deposition. He testified that, on February 22, 1999, Felber\u2019s condition was different than it had been before. Specifically, she had a \u201cnonphysiological ligamentous strain of the upper neck\u201d that did not exist on prior visits. Dr. Feeley had never seen that type of strain occur without trauma, and it was consistent with the history of the collision that Felber had given. He opined that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the injuries that he found on February 22, 1999, were \u201cdirectly causally related\u201d to the collision. He also opined that Felber\u2019s complaints of numbness in her arms and hands were \u201ccausally related and proximally and directly related\u201d to the collision. Her symptoms of neck pain, numbness in the arms, and shoulder pain were \u201cdirectly a continuation of relationship to the trauma\u201d from the collision.\nOn cross-examination, London inquired about an X ray from November 1998 that showed that Felber had degeneration of the cervical spine and \u201cearly signs of osteoarthritis.\u201d Dr. Feeley characterized this as \u201cminimal disk disease.\u201d He opined that the degeneration and arthritis \u201cwill be accelerated and has been accelerated\u201d by the collision. According to Dr. Feeley, the arthritis would have probably progressed even if Felber had not been involved in the collision; however, the arthritis \u201chas been accelerated by the trauma that she received\u201d in the collision.\nIn December 1998, Felber complained of cracking in her neck when she turned, headaches, and pain in her neck and upper back between the shoulders.\nOn appeal, Felber argues that the admission of evidence of a plaintiffs prior injuries is per se reversible error when the defendant fails to present expert testimony that the prior injuries caused the current claimed injuries. Felber cites Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer, 192 Ill. 2d 49 (2000), for support. In Voykin, the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a traffic accident. The plaintiff then sought treatment for neck and back pain. The trial court allowed the defendant to question the plaintiff and the plaintiffs expert witness about a lower back injury that the plaintiff had suffered five years before the accident in question and to introduce evidence relating to the treatment of prior injuries. The trial court also allowed the defendant to introduce evidence that the plaintiff had previously suffered from unspecified neck problems.\nOur supreme court held:\n\u201c[I]f a defendant wishes to introduce evidence that the plaintiff has suffered a prior injury, *** the defendant must introduce expert evidence demonstrating why the prior injury is relevant to causation, damages, or some other issue of consequence. This rule applies unless the trial court, in its discretion, determines that the natures of the prior and current injuries are such that a lay person can readily appraise the relationship, if any, between those injuries without expert assistance.\u201d Voykin, 192 Ill. 2d at 59.\nOur supreme court reviewed the evidence and concluded that the disputed evidence should have been excluded. The court found that the evidence did not\n\u201ccome close to demonstrating what plaintiffs \u2018neck problems\u2019 were, when he suffered them, or when he last suffered from symptoms. Nothing about the evidence presented by defendant has any tendency to make it less likely that defendant caused plaintiff s neck injury or that defendant caused plaintiff to suffer damages. Without expert testimony establishing both the nature of plaintiff s prior \u2018neck problems\u2019 as well as the relationship between those prior problems and plaintiffs current claim, an average juror could not readily appraise the effect of the prior problems upon plaintiff\u2019s current claim.\u201d Voykin, 192 Ill. 2d at 60.\nOur review of the record leads us to conclude that the evidence in this case is such that the jurors could readily appraise the relationship between the injuries of which Felber complained after the collision and her preexisting injuries without additional expert assistance; thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing London to introduce evidence of Felber\u2019s preexisting injuries. Unlike the evidence in Voykin, there was specific testimony, from both Felber and Dr. Feeley, regarding the extent of Felber\u2019s preexisting injuries and symptoms and the treatments she received in the months, even days, before the collision. Both Felber and Dr. Feeley were specifically questioned about Felber\u2019s condition after the collision, and Dr. Feeley testified about the possible effects of the collision on Felber\u2019s preexisting condition. This is precisely the type of testimony that obviates the need for additional expert testimony. Unlike the evidence in Voykin, the nature of Felber\u2019s prior condition and its possible relationship to her current claim were clearly established. The jury was free to make its own determination, in light of both parties\u2019 description of the collision, whether the collision caused, or contributed to, Felber\u2019s current condition. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court\u2019s admission of testimony regarding Felber\u2019s prior injuries.\nFor these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBOWMAN and GILLERAN JOHNSON, JJ, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McLAREN" } ], "attorneys": [ "David C. Van Dyke, Andrew P. Bleiman, Donald F. Ivansek, Brian A. Schroeder, and Jean M. Golden, all of Cassiday, Schade & Gloor, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Mark A. Dinos and Jeffrey A. Siderius, both of Morse & Bolduc, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DAWN FELBER, Indiv. and as Next Friend of Hannah Hildebrandt, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY LONDON, Defendant-Appellee.\nSecond District\nNo. 2 \u2014 02\u20141226\nOpinion filed January 30, 2004.\nDavid C. Van Dyke, Andrew P. Bleiman, Donald F. Ivansek, Brian A. Schroeder, and Jean M. Golden, all of Cassiday, Schade & Gloor, of Chicago, for appellant.\nMark A. Dinos and Jeffrey A. Siderius, both of Morse & Bolduc, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0188-01", "first_page_order": 206, "last_page_order": 211 }