Can expert testimony establish zero percent causation for damage apportionment? Gines v. Edwards Explained

In personal injury cases involving preexisting conditions, defendants often face the challenging burden of proving damages should be apportioned between the accident and the plaintiff’s prior medical issues. The Utah Court of Appeals in Gines v. Edwards addressed whether expert testimony establishing zero percent permanent causation provides sufficient basis for jury apportionment.

Background and Facts

Gines was a passenger in a vehicle rear-ended at five to ten miles per hour by Edwards. At the time of the accident, Gines had already undergone two spinal surgeries and his physician had recommended a third surgery just six weeks before the collision, noting his condition was “not static” and expected to worsen. After the accident, Gines underwent the third surgery and sued Edwards, claiming $61,296.60 in past medical expenses were caused by the accident.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Edwards provided sufficient evidence for the jury to apportion damages between Gines’ preexisting spinal condition and any harm caused by the accident. Under Harris v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., defendants must provide expert testimony giving the jury “some nonarbitrary evidentiary basis” to apportion damages, though this doesn’t require exact percentages.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Edwards’ expert, Dr. Goldman, testified that the accident caused only a temporary sprain/strain injury that would resolve within three to six months, while Gines’ need for surgery was “entirely 100 percent due to his previous injuries.” The court found this testimony provided a “useful nonnumeric description” and “reasonable range of percentages” (zero percent for permanent harm, 100 percent for temporary effects) sufficient for nonarbitrary apportionment. The jury’s award of $10,000 rather than the full $61,296.60 reflected acceptance of this theory.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that expert testimony need not provide precise percentage allocations to meet ShopKo requirements. An expert opinion that an accident caused zero percent of permanent harm while preexisting conditions caused 100 percent provides sufficient basis for apportionment. The case also reinforces that appellants challenging expert witness rulings must address the trial court’s actual reasoning rather than merely citing procedural rules or advisory committee notes.