Gladstone v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co.

166 N.E.3d 362

Daniel S. GLADSTONE, Appellant/Plaintiff,

v.WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Defendant.

Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CT-1499

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED March 24, 2021

Attorney for Appellant: Mark J. Schocke, Highland, Indiana

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Indiana Trial Lawyers Association: Scott A. Faultless, Craig Kelley & Faultless LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Christine Riesner Bond, Matthew J. Jankowski, Thomas S. Ehrhardt, Kopka Pinkus Dolin PC, Carmel, Indiana

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana: Keith D. Mundrick, Paul Mackowski, SmithAmundsen LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana

Bradford, Chief Judge

Case Summary¹

[1] Daniel Gladstone was injured in an automobile accident in 2016, suffering a Colles Fracture,² for which he received medical treatment. In 2018, Gladstone sued the tortfeasor for negligence, and she was dismissed from the case after she tendered her insurance policy's limit of $50,000.00. Gladstone continued against his insurance provider West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, seeking to recover pursuant to his underinsured-motorist ("UIM") coverage. Gladstone eventually dropped his claim for medical expenses, electing to seek damages for pain and suffering only. West Bend nevertheless sought to introduce evidence of Gladstone's medical bills at trial, and the trial court admitted the evidence over Gladstone's objection. The jury awarded Gladstone $0.00. Gladstone contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his medical bills, regarding settlement negotiations, and of insurance payments in violation of Indiana's collateral source statute. Because we reject Gladstone's first argument and conclude that his last two are waived for appellate review, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Late in the evening of December 17, 2016, Gladstone was driving west on Main Street in Calumet while Christina Carli was driving east. Carli swerved into Gladstone's lane and skidded, striking the front of Gladstone's vehicle with the side of hers. Gladstone, who is right-handed, suffered a laceration to his right forearm, a contusion to his right knee, and a Colles Fracture to his right wrist. Gladstone sought medical treatment the night of the accident after his father drove him to an emergency room, and his follow-up treatment consisted of him wearing a cast on his wrist for six weeks and attending follow-up visits with an orthopedist, as well as physical therapy to increase his mobility and strength. Gladstone was discharged from physical therapy on March 16, 2017, after he was able to perform a functional reach to desk height without limitation and a greater than ninety-five-pound grip without pain. Gladstone was not given any restrictions upon being discharged and did not see a medical professional about his wrist again until June of 2020.

[3] On October 16, 2018, Gladstone filed suit against Carli, alleging negligence and seeking punitive damages. On November 7, 2018, Gladstone filed an amended complaint adding West Bend as a defendant for breach of contract and UIM benefits pursuant to an automobile-insurance policy issued to Gladstone. Prior to trial, Carli tendered her insurance policy's limit of $50,000.00 and was dismissed from the case. West Bend did not object to the settlement and waived its right to subrogate against Carli.

[4] On June 2, 2020, Gladstone moved to exclude evidence of his medical billing records on the basis that he was not seeking medical expenses. On June 12, 2020, the trial court denied Gladstone's motion to exclude reference to his medical bills. The same day, West Bend filed a motion in limine seeking to present billed amounts and reductions. The trial court granted West Bend's motion regarding the admission of medical bills to include the billed amount and the reduced amount.

[5] On July 27, 2020, the case proceeded to jury trial against West Bend as Gladstone's UIM carrier with up to $250,000.00 in coverage.³ West Bend claims specialist Steven Hines indicated (in testimony elicited by Gladstone) that Gladstone had already received $50,000.00 from Carli's insurer. Gladstone's mother testified that his wrist difficulty meant that he could no longer participate in the annual family bowling outing at Thanksgiving, could not draw for any length of time without pain, had experienced pain when helping to build a deck in 2019, and could not lift objects without pain. Gladstone testified that he had had "bad moments" ever since the accident involving "anything that is repetitive or heavy lifting" and noted that "anything that vibrates is really bad to be using." Tr. Vol. II p. 80. Gladstone also indicated that job duties such as scrubbing pots and pans, pulling carts, or lifting objects that weigh over fifty pounds caused him pain in his wrist.

[6] A video recording of Michael Spence, M.D.’s, deposition was shown to the jury. Dr. Spence had evaluated Gladstone on June 18, 2020, and testified that Gladstone had suffered a nondisplaced Colles Fracture to the radius and ulna bones in his right forearm in the accident. Dr. Spence indicated that Gladstone had complained of pain in his right wrist on June 18, 2020, and Dr. Spence found that he had a diminished grip and a "little bit" of a diminished range of motion. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 142. Dr. Spence's diagnosis was "[a] nondisplaced fracture to the right distal radius with intra-articular extension, as well as a nondisplaced ulnar styloid fracture, with residual pain and range of motion deficit due to posttraumatic osteoarthritis." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 144. Dr. Spence opined that the wrist injury Gladstone had sustained in the accident had caused his arthritis and that he suspected it would be a "chronic, lifelong issue." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 146. Dr. Spence calculated the impairment of Gladstone's right arm to be nine percent and of his entire body to be five percent. On cross-examination, Dr. Spence acknowledged that a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (which can be caused by repetitive motion) could not be ruled out without additional testing, which, by the time of trial, had not occurred or been sought.

[7] The trial court allowed West Bend to introduce Gladstone's medical bills into evidence and to question him about them over a relevance objection. The evidence of Gladstone's medical bills was admitted as Defendant's Exhibit B and indicated that his post-accident treatments had resulted in approximately $14,000.00 in medical bills, which had been reduced to just under $2000.00 by insurance payments and discounts. The jury concluded that Gladstone was entitled to recover $0.00.

Discussion and Decision

I. Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Admitting Evidence of Gladstone's Medical Bills

[8] Gladstone contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his medical bills at trial. A trial court's ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion that results in prejudicial error. Williams v. State , 43 N.E.3d 578, 581 (Ind. 2015). A trial court's evidentiary decision will be reversed for an abuse of discretion only where the court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the court misinterprets the law. Id.

This discretion means that, in many cases, trial judges have options. They can admit or exclude evidence, and we won't meddle with that decision on appeal. See Smoote v. State , 708 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. 1999). There are good reasons for this. "Our instincts are less practiced than those of the trial bench and our sense for the rhythms of a trial less sure." [ United States v. Hall , 858 F.3d 254, 289 (4th Cir. 2017) (Wilkinson, J., dissenting)]. And trial courts are far better at weighing evidence and assessing witness credibility. Carpenter v. State , 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014). In sum, our vantage point—in a "far corner of the upper deck"—does not provide as clear a view. State v. Keck , 4 N.E.3d 1180, 1185 (Ind. 2014).

Snow v. State , 77 N.E.3d 173, 177 (Ind. 2017).

[9] Indiana Rule of Evidence 402 provides, in part, that "[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible[,]" and Evidence Rule 401 provides that "[e]vidence is relevant if [...] it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and [...] the fact is of consequence in determining the action." "Evidence is admissible if it has a tendency to prove or disprove a material fact, and is not otherwise excluded by an evidentiary rule." Lloyd v. State , 669 N.E.2d 980, 985 (Ind. 1996). Evidence Rule 403, however, provides that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

[10] As the parties point out, the question of whether evidence of medical bills is admissible in a proceeding in which recovery of them is not sought has not been specifically addressed in Indiana. Gladstone argues that evidence of medical bills is never relevant to the question of pain and suffering and that, because he did not seek medical expenses in this case, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the bills. Gladstone also argues that, even if evidence of his medical bills is relevant, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury. West Bend argues that a bright-line rule regarding the admissibility of medical bills when the recovery of medical expenses is not sought is at odds with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and Indiana law. West Bend also argues that, not only is evidence of medical bills generally relevant to the question of pain and suffering, but also its probative value was...