An appellate court in New Jersey has reversed a jury verdict in favor of an insured after concluding that expert testimony was required to prove that an accident that injured the insured had caused his erectile dysfunction (“ED”).
The Case
After a damages-only trial, a jury found that Thomas Chetney had suffered a permanent spinal injury as a result of a collision caused by an uninsured driver, and awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages. The trial court molded the award to reflect the $500,000 limit under the automobile insurance policy issued to Mr. Chetney by New Jersey Manufacturers Re-Insurance Company (“NJMRe”) and a workers' compensation lien.
NJMRe appealed. Among other things, it argued that the trial court had erred in permitting Mr. Chetney and his wife to testify that he suffered from ED after the accident without Mr. Chetney offering an expert opinion that the injuries from the accident had caused that condition. The trial court reasoned that expert testimony was not necessary to establish what Mr. Chetney experienced himself. Furthermore, the trial court said, Mr. Chetney was free to testify about how the accident had affected his life.
The Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court reversed.
In its decision, the appellate court rejected the trial court's determination that expert testimony was not required to establish that the accident had caused Mr. Chetney's ED. Because Mr. Chetney sought to prove causation of his medical condition, “of course, competent expert testimony [was] required.”
The appellate court pointed out that Mr. Chetney's symptoms could have had “psychological or physical causes unrelated to his injury.” The appellate court conceded that Mr. Chetney did not need an expert to describe his symptoms, but ruled that “he needed an expert to identify their medical cause.”
The appellate court observed that Mr. Chetney and his wife testified that he had experienced no difficulty before the collision, but it said that “coincidence” was “not causation.”
Moreover, the appellate court continued, the evidence did not clearly establish when the condition first appeared.
The appellate court said that it could not conclude that this error was harmless, noting that the testimony of Mr. Chetney's ED was “emotionally powerful evidence,” with his wife testifying about a miscarriage, her inability to have a desired third child, and the loss of intimacy with her husband.
Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that a new trial was warranted at which Mr. Chetney would have to present expert testimony to establish the causal connection between his spinal injury resulting from the accident and his ED.
The case is Chetney v. New Jersey Manufacturers Re-Insurance Co., No. A-2158-15T4 (N.J. App.Div. July 17, 2018). Attorneys involved include: Kevin F. Sheehy argued the cause for appellant (Leyden, Capotorto, Ritacco & Corrigan, attorneys; Paul J. Capotorto, of counsel; Kevin F. Sheehy, on the briefs). Michael J. Deem argued the cause for respondent (R.C. Shea & Associates, attorneys; Michael J. Deem, of counsel and on the brief).
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].