Utah Court of Appeals
When can defendants introduce evidence of preexisting medical conditions in personal injury cases? Schreib v. Whitmer Explained
Summary
Marie Schreib sued Joel Whitmer for personal injuries from a rear-end collision. After Whitmer accepted liability, the jury found the accident was not the legal cause of Schreib’s injuries. Schreib appealed the trial court’s denial of her motions in limine to exclude evidence of preexisting conditions and vehicle damage photographs.
Analysis
In personal injury litigation, defendants often seek to introduce evidence of a plaintiff’s preexisting medical conditions to challenge causation. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Schreib v. Whitmer, clarifying the standards for admitting such evidence.
Background and Facts
Marie Schreib was rear-ended by Joel Whitmer in a library parking lot. Schreib filed suit claiming personal injuries from the accident. She moved in limine to exclude evidence of her preexisting medical conditions and prior accidents, arguing the evidence was irrelevant without expert testimony connecting the conditions to her current injuries. She also sought to exclude photographs of the vehicles showing minimal damage. The trial court denied both motions. Although Whitmer accepted liability, the jury found the accident was not the legal cause of Schreib’s injuries.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether evidence of preexisting medical conditions requires expert testimony establishing a connection to current pathology; (2) whether photographs showing minimal vehicle damage are admissible; and (3) whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict on causation.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court rejected Schreib’s reliance on Harris v. ShopKo Stores, explaining that ShopKo addressed jury instructions on apportionment, not admissibility of preexisting condition evidence. The court held that evidence of preexisting conditions is relevant when it tends to disprove a plaintiff’s contention that the current accident was the sole cause of injuries. Such evidence must still overcome other evidentiary hurdles under Rules 401-403, but relevance alone does not require expert testimony establishing causation.
Regarding the vehicle photographs, the court found them relevant to determining the force of impact and likelihood of injury. While the photographs may have been prejudicial, they were not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that defendants need not present expert testimony to make evidence of preexisting conditions relevant. When the primary issue is whether plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the defendant’s conduct versus preexisting conditions, such evidence will likely be deemed relevant. Plaintiffs should focus their motions in limine on Rule 403 arguments about unfair prejudice rather than relevance challenges. The decision also confirms that juries may reject expert testimony even when unchallenged, emphasizing the importance of presenting compelling evidence beyond expert opinions.
Case Details
Case Name
Schreib v. Whitmer
Citation
2016 UT App 61
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140209-CA
Date Decided
March 31, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Evidence of preexisting medical conditions and prior accidents is relevant when it tends to disprove plaintiff’s contention that the current accident was the sole cause of her injuries, and photographs of minimal vehicle damage are relevant to the force of impact and likelihood of injury.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law, abuse of discretion for relevance determinations and evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence standard for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict
Practice Tip
When challenging evidence of preexisting conditions, focus on unfair prejudice under Rule 403 rather than relevance, as such evidence is generally relevant to causation issues.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.