Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesliabilityverdicttestimonyburden of proofsustainedappellant
plaintiffdefendantburden of proofappellantappellee

Related Cases

Kennedy v. Syracuse University, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1995 WL 548710
View Case »
McFadyen v. Duke University, 786 F.Supp.2d 887, 272 Ed. Law Rep. 247
View Case »
Garvey ex rel. Doe v. Unified School Dist. 262, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2548332
View Case »
Right Field Rooftops, LLC v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, 870 F.3d 682, 2017-2 Trade Cases P 80,128
View Case »
Vanderbilt University v. DiNardo, 174 F.3d 751, 134 Ed. Law Rep. 766, 14 IER Cases 1702, 1999 Fed.App. 0135P
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Eberhart v. Morris Brown College, 181 Ga.App. 516, 352 S.E.2d 832, 37 Ed. Law Rep. 720

Facts

The appellant, a former student athlete at Morris Brown College, sustained a football injury while playing for the college. He alleged that the college had verbally agreed to provide necessary medical treatment for injuries sustained during football activities. After becoming dissatisfied with the treatment from the college's designated team physicians, he sought treatment elsewhere and incurred various medical expenses. Years later, he filed a lawsuit against the college to recover these medical expenses, but did not provide medical testimony linking his current physical condition to the original football injury.

From 1979 until 1982, appellant-plaintiff attended appellee-defendant Morris Brown College on a football scholarship. Appellant alleges that appellee had verbally agreed to provide him with all necessary medical treatment should he sustain an injury while playing football. Appellant was injured while playing football for appellee and appellee did make provision for him to receive free medical treatment from certain designated team physicians.

Issue

Did the appellant meet his burden of proof to recover medical expenses incurred as a result of his football injury?

Did the appellant meet his burden of proof to recover medical expenses incurred as a result of his football injury?

Rule

Analysis

The court found that although the appellant's medical bills were admitted into evidence, he failed to provide the necessary medical testimony to establish a causal link between his current physical condition and the football injury. The statutory rule allows for the admission of medical bills but does not eliminate the requirement for the plaintiff to prove that the injuries for which they seek damages are related to the defendant's liability. Without expert testimony, the jury could not determine if the medical expenses were a result of the football injury.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the directed verdict in favor of the college, concluding that the appellant did not meet his burden of proof.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Morris Brown College prevailed in this case because the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence linking his medical expenses to the football injury sustained while playing for the college. The court emphasized that while the appellant's medical bills were admitted into evidence, he did not produce any medical testimony to establish that his current physical condition was a probable result of the prior injury, which was necessary to prove liability.

Appellee had not assumed the responsibility of an insurer for all medical expenses that appellant might incur throughout his life, but only such expenses as were related to his football injury.

You must be