Rule 23 order filed NO. 5-07-0433
August 19, 2008;
Motion to publish granted IN THE
September 29, 2008.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________
ELLEN FRONABARGER, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Madison County.
)
v. ) No. 05-L-1141
)
EDITH BURNS, ) Honorable
) Nicholas G. Byron,
Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.
________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE WELCH delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff, Ellen Fronabarger, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Madison
County that entered a judgment in her favor and against the defendant, Edith Burns, pursuant
to a jury verdict. On appeal, the plaintiff raises two issues, which we restate as follows: (1)
whether the trial court erred in allowing into evidence, without expert testimony, photographs
of the parties' vehicles following the accident and (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing
the defendant's expert's testimony regarding the photographs, the damage to the vehicles, and
the plaintiff's corresponding injury. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of
the circuit court.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2005, the plaintiff filed a one-count complaint in the circuit court of
Madison County, alleging that the defendant was negligent when she rear-ended the plaintiff,
causing the plaintiff injury. The plaintiff sought damages in excess of $50,000. Beginning
on May 14, 2007, a two-day jury trial was held, where the following evidence was adduced.
On November 29, 2003, at approximately 11:30 a.m., the plaintiff's vehicle, while
1
stopped at the intersection of State Aid 35 and Route 111, was struck from the rear by the
defendant's vehicle. The plaintiff intended to turn right at this intersection but was stopped
because the light was red. The defendant was traveling on State Aid 35, and she also
intended to turn right onto Route 111. The defendant testified she saw that the light was red
and slowed down. She looked to the left, checking the traffic on Route 111. When she
looked back, she was surprised to see the plaintiff's car still stopped at the light. She slowed
but failed to come to a complete stop and struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant
described the force of the impact as being similar to a car's front wheels hitting a concrete
parking block while parking. She estimated that she was traveling under 14 miles per hour
when the accident occurred, because her air bags did not deploy. The defendant testified that
only her front bumper was involved in the accident, that her car did not have any damage,
and that she observed minor damage to the plaintiff's vehicle.
The plaintiff described the force of the impact as "just a push" that made her body
move forward. She had no warning and was unaware that the defendant's vehicle was going
to hit her vehicle. She was wearing her safety belt and did not hit any part of her body
against the inside of her car or lose consciousness as a result of the accident. Her vehicle had
scratches on the bumper and the bumper was pushed forward. She testified that she felt stiff
immediately after the accident but did not think she was hurt. After the accident, she went
to her scheduled hair appointment and worked her regular shift. She also worked her regular
shift the following day.
On December 1, 2003, two days after her accident, the plaintiff "could not get out of
bed" because of her back pain. She saw Dr. Shipley, a chiropractic physician, on that day.
Shipley testified that he diagnosed the plaintiff's lower back pain as radiculopathy. Shipley
also testified that the plaintiff had degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease
which predated the accident. The plaintiff had three treatments a week for six months and
2
then two treatments a week for six more months. The plaintiff's last treatment was on
December 22, 2004. Shipley instructed the defendant not to lift heavy objects and to sit when
possible. Shipley testified that he believed, within a reasonable degree of chiropractic
certainty, that the November 29, 2003, accident caused the plaintiff's symptoms. The total
bill for the treatment was $10,225. Throughout her treatment, the plaintiff was able to work.
Three weeks after the accident, she returned to her bowling league three nights a week,
playing two games each night. Five weeks after the accident, she began bowling three games
a night, three nights a week.
During the trial, the defendant presented a series of photographs. Two of the
photographs were of the defendant's car after the accident. The defendant testified that these
pictures fairly and accurately depicted the way her car looked following the accident. The
defendant also presented two other pictures; these pictures were of the plaintiff's car after the
accident. The plaintiff stated that these pictures fairly and accurately depicted the plaintiff's
vehicle following the accident. The photographs depicted no damage to the defendant's car
and minor damage to the plaintiff's bumper. The plaintiff objected to the admissibility of the
photographs, and the circuit court overruled the objection, allowing the photographs to be
admitted into evidence.
The last witness to testify was the defendant's expert, Dr. Karen Pentella, via an
evidence deposition. Pentella, who is board-certified in neurology and pain medicine,
reviewed the plaintiff's medical records and conducted an independent physical and
neurological examination of the plaintiff on September 13, 2006. She did not find any
abnormalities in the plaintiff's neck, thoracic spine, or lumbar spine or irritation of the sciatic
nerve. She testified that the plaintiff's lower back was tender in the midline and lumbar
regions. Her review of Shipley's records revealed that the plaintiff had degenerative disc
disease and degenerative joint disease. Pentella testified that these degenerative diseases
3
would have predated the accident and that the degenerative joint disease could have caused
the pain in the plaintiff's lower back. Pentella opined that the plaintiff did not suffer any
significant or permanent injury as a result of the accident and that the plaintiff will not need
any more medical treatment. She testified that she was unable to determine if the plaintiff
suffered from a soft tissue injury, which usually lasts not longer than 6 weeks, because she
examined the plaintiff 2 years and 10 months after the accident.
In addition to reviewing the records in this case, Pentella also reviewed the
photographs of the defendant's and plaintiff's vehicles. Pentella testified that the photographs
were significant because the vehicles in them showed no damage. Pentella testified as
follows:
"Q. [Defense attorney:] Okay. And Doctor, in looking at those photographs
that I think have previously–one has been previously marked–or actually we'll mark
it as Defendant's Exhibit Number 4.
MS. BARBIERI [plaintiff's attorney]: Your Honor, just for the record, I will
again renew my objection to admissibility of the photographs as irrelevant and beyond
the scope of this doctor's training and expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Doctor, what significance, if any, were the photographs to you in your
evaluation?
A. Well, the significance to me is that they show no damage to the vehicle. So,
the first indication of the amount of force that Ms. Fronabarger sustained at the time
of the impact would be given to me by looking–by knowing how much damage was
done to the vehicle, because that's going to be the first place where the force is felt.
And if the vehicle doesn't sustain any evidence of an impact, then it's not likely that
the people in the vehicle are going to have significant evidence of an impact."
4
On cross-examination, Pentella testified that she had training in biomechanics while
an undergraduate. She also testified that while she does not have a degree in biomechanics,
knowledge of biomechanics is necessary for doctors treating patients with conditions that
affect the spine. Pentella testified that form distortions, elasticity tests, crash test
information, and energy-absorbing bumper information did not factor into her opinion about
the damage done to the vehicles and the injury sustained by the plaintiff.
On redirect, Pentella testified that when a person is involved in a rear-end collision,
the neck is more likely to suffer strain or injury than the lower back, because the lower back
is restrained by the lap belt and the shoulder harness. She testified that a great impact would
be needed between the vehicles to injure the lower back. From looking at the pictures,
Pentella testified that she did not see any evidence of impact. The plaintiff objected to this
testimony, which the courted noted.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $3,141. The
plaintiff now appeals.
ANALYSIS
The first issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting, without
expert testimony, photographs of the parties' vehicles following the accident. It is within the
discretion of the trial court to decide whether evidence is relevant and admissible. Ferro v.
Griffiths, 361 Ill. App. 3d 738, 742 (2005). Evidence is relevant if it has " 'any tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more
or less probable than it would be without the evidence.' " DiCosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill. App.
3d 530, 535 (2003) (quoting Wojcik v. City of Chicago, 299 Ill. App. 3d 964, 971 (1998)).
A trial court's decision to admit evidence will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.
Jackson v. Seib, 372 Ill. App. 3d 1061 (2007). A trial court abuses its discretion when "no
reasonable person would take the position adopted by the trial court." Ferro, 361 Ill. App.
5
3d at 742.
The plaintiff argues that absent expert testimony on the correlation between vehicular
damage and plaintiff's injuries, photographs of the parties' damaged vehicles is inadmissible,
citing Baraniak v. Kurby, 371 Ill. App. 3d 310, 318 (2007). The appellate court has rejected
the notion that these photographs are always admissible or that expert testimony is always
necessary. Jackson, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 1070; DiCosola, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 537; Ferro, 361
Ill. App. 3d at 743. The court in Ferro stated that a trial court has to determine "whether the
photographs make the resulting injury to the plaintiff more or less probable" and "whether
the nature of the damage to the vehicles and the injury to the plaintiff are such that a lay
person can readily assess their relationship, if any, without expert interpretation." Ferro, 361
Ill. App. 3d at 742. This is an evidentiary question that is left to the discretion of the trial
court. Ferro, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 742.
In this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the
photographs without expert testimony. Upon a review of the pictures and the record of the
proceedings, we find that a jury could assess the relationship between the damage to the
vehicles and the injury to the plaintiff without the aid of an expert. The photographs were
introduced to show why minimal damage to the vehicles was relevant to the nature and extent
of the plaintiff's injuries. In this case, the plaintiff sought chiropractic treatment for an entire
year for her lower back pain, while she was still able to participate in her bowling league
three nights a week. The photographs depicted relatively minor damage to the plaintiff's
vehicle and no damage to the defendant's vehicle. The trial court could properly have found
that the photographs were relevant to prove that the plaintiff's injury was more probable or
less probable. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The remaining two arguments in the plaintiff's brief can be combined into one
argument that the trial court erred in admitting Pentella's testimony showing a correlation
6
between the photographs and the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff argues that the trial court
should not have allowed the defendant's expert to testify that "if the vehicle doesn't sustain
any evidence of an impact, then it's not likely that the people in the vehicle are going to have
significant evidence of an impact." The plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to lay a
foundation because Pentella was not qualified to give testimony regarding the damage to
vehicles correlating with the injury to the plaintiff.
An expert opinion is admissible if "the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education in a field that has 'at least a modicum of reliability,' and if
the testimony would aid the jury in understanding the evidence." Hiscott v. Peters, 324 Ill.
App. 3d 114, 122 (2001) (quoting Wiegman v. Hitch-Inn Post of Libertyville, Inc., 308 Ill.
App. 3d 789, 799 (1999)). The admission of expert testimony requires the proponent to lay
an adequate foundation establishing that the information on which the expert bases her
opinion is reliable. Hiscott, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 122. If a proper foundation has been laid, the
expert's testimony is admissible, but the weight to be assigned to that testimony is for the jury
to determine. Wiegman, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 799. The admission of expert testimony is within
the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless the trial court abused its
discretion. Martin v. Sally, 341 Ill. App. 3d 308, 315 (2003).
In this case, the defendant laid a proper foundation for Pentella's expert testimony.
Pentella is a graduate of Ohio State University, School of Medicine, and she is board-
certified in both pain medicine and neurology. She testified that as a neurologist she has
experience in treating patients injured in automobile accidents. She also testified that she had
reviewed the plaintiff's medical records and the vehicle photographs and that she had
performed an independent medical examination on the plaintiff. Pentella based her testimony
on her observation and experience as a doctor who treats patients injured in automobile
accidents. "Illinois case law is replete with physicians who have testified, based on
7
observation and experience, regarding their opinion of whether a claimant was injured."
Jackson v. Seib, 372 Ill. App. 3d 1061, 1073 (2007).
The plaintiff relies on Martin v. Sally, 341 Ill. App. 3d 308 (2003), in which the
appellate court held that an accident reconstructionist's testimony based on generalities and
not the specific facts lacked foundation. In Martin, the expert failed to consider the
plaintiff's weight, height, and age. The expert also failed to consider how extensive the
plaintiff's preexisting injuries were or whether the plaintiff wore a seat belt. In this case,
however, when determining the severity of the plaintiff's preexisting degenerative conditions,
Pentella considered the plaintiff's weight and age. Pentella also testified that the seat belt
worn by the plaintiff probably reduced the chances of the plaintiff injuring her lower back.
Further, in Martin, while the court found error, it did not find that the error was prejudicial
or that the result of the trial was materially affected. Martin, 341 Ill. App. 3d at 316. The
testimony of the accident reconstructionist did not affect the outcome of the trial because the
testimony of the other expert witnesses supported the jury's verdict. Martin, 341 Ill. App. 3d
at 316. In that case, Dr. Delheimer, a neurosurgeon, examined the plaintiff and reviewed the
medical records. He believed that the plaintiff's surgery had no causal relationship to the
automobile accident. Delheimer based his belief, in part, on the lack of damages to the
vehicles, as shown by the photographs. In this case, Pentella based her opinions regarding
the plaintiff's injury on her examination of the plaintiff, her review of the records, and in part,
on the lack of damage to the vehicles as depicted in the photographs. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion in allowing Pentella's testimony regarding the damages done to the
vehicles, as depicted in the photographs, and the plaintiff's corresponding injury.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County is
hereby affirmed.
8
Affirmed.
WEXSTTEN and DONOVAN, JJ., concur.
9
NO. 5-07-0433
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
___________________________________________________________________________________
ELLEN FRONABARGER, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Madison County.
)
v. ) No. 05-L-1141
)
EDITH BURNS, ) Honorable
) Nicholas G. Byron,
Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Rule 23 Order Filed: August 19, 2008
Motion to Publish Granted: September 29, 2008
Opinion Filed: September 29, 2008
___________________________________________________________________________________
Justices: Honorable Thomas M. Welch, J.
Honorable James M. Wexstten, J., and
Honorable James K. Donovan, J.,
Concur
___________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Ms. Jennifer L. Barbieri, Mr. Thomas C. Rich, Thomas C. Rich, P.C., 6 Executive
for Drive, Suite 3, Fairview Heights, IL 62208
Appellant
___________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Martin K. Morrissey, Dominique N. Seymoure, Tara I. English, Reed, Armstrong,
for Gorman, Mudge & Morrissey, P.C., 115 N. Buchanan, P.O. Box 368, Edwardsville,
Appellee IL 62025
___________________________________________________________________________________