Oversimplification, Distortion and Getting Back to Basics: Medical Testimony

Our legal system runs based on a principle called stare decisis. It means "to stand by things decided." Courts implement stare decisis by sticking to prior rulings and rationales.

Predictability and continuity sounds well and good. But in practice, reiterating and repackaging prior rulings can degrade what courts originally decided and eliminate reasoned nuance in favor of binary requirements.

A good example involves physician testimony. It's reflexive for most judges. If there's an issue involving injury, treatment or the cost of treatment, judges insist on testiomy from a health care provider.

What it means is most injured people have to arrange for physician testimony before a judge will allow a jury to award damages for injuries suffered in a collision.

It makes sense that physician testimony would be important to establish the link between a motor vehicle collision and something like cardiac arrhythmia.

But if someone suffers a neck injury after being rear ended, is there really any reason for the court to require a physician to testify at trial?

[Obviously there may be benefit--from the perspective of the plaintiff--to calling a doctor to convince the jury about the nature and extent of the injury. But should it be an actual requirement or just election the plaintiff is allowed to make?]

Fortunately, it appears like some judges are looking at the original reasoning/rationales and not relying on the reductionistic formulations that some judges have adopted as the gospel. (It's almost like going back and looking at the original rather than a facsimile of a facsimile of a facsimile.)

On February 2, 2026 the Court of Appeals said enough is enough. In Lowe v. Ace Hardware it reversed a decision from the Superior Court. The Superior Court dismissed a suit because the plaintiff--who had been hit by a van--didn't offer testimony from any doctors explaining that a motor vehicle collision caused injury.

It explained: "[W]hen the results of an alleged act of negligence are within the experience and observation of an ordinary lay person, the trier of fact can draw a conclusion as to the causal link without resort to medical testimony."

That's consistent what courts have said in the past: "[A]n injured person can testify regarding the subjective aspects of an injury and to the limitations of his physical movements. The weight of such testimony is for the jury."

And courts have also explained that past and future wage/income loss do not require physician testimony. It's enough that the injured person provide testimony about how the subjective aspects of an injury and the limitations associated with the injury affect their work.

It's nice to see judges cut through the distortion that frequently comes from over-simplification and get back to what makes common sense.

A doctor may be required if the issue is esoteric. And doctors may help to medically bolster what the plaintiff explains from the perspective of lived experience. But in most cases plaintiffs should get to make the call whether they want to call a doctor to tell the jury about their injuries.