Noble v. Earle M. Jorgensen Co. , 990 N.E.2d 377 ( 2013 )

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appellate Court
Noble v. Earle M. Jorgensen Co., 2013 IL App (5th) 120248Appellate Court BRENDA NOBLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EARLE M. JORGENSEN
Caption COMPANY, d/b/a EMJ Metals and The EMJ Company, and MARK
McCOLLUM, Defendants-Appellants.
District & No. Fifth District
Docket No. 5-12-0248
Filed May 22, 2013
Held In an action for the back injury plaintiff suffered in an automobile
(Note: This syllabus accident, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff’s
constitutes no part of motion in limine barring evidence regarding plaintiff’s prior injuries to
the opinion of the court her lower back and a subsequent fracture of her lower back, since plaintiff
but has been prepared testified that she had not previously suffered any pain in the area of her
by the Reporter of back that was injured in the automobile accident.
Decisions for the
convenience of the
reader.)
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, No. 07-L-250; the
Review Hon. Robert P. LeChien, Judge, presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Ronald A. Roth, of Roth Law Offices, of Granite City, for appellants.
Appeal
Mark S. Schuver and William J. Niehoff, both of Mathis, Marifian &
Richter, Ltd., of Belleville, for appellee.
Panel JUSTICE WELCH delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Stewart and Cates concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 This is a negligence action brought in the circuit court of St. Clair County by the plaintiff,
Brenda Noble, against the defendants, Earle M. Jorgensen Company, d/b/a EMJ Metals and
The EMJ Company (EMJ), and Mark McCollum, for injuries she sustained as a result of an
automobile accident. On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court erred in granting the
plaintiff’s motion in limine barring them from mentioning the plaintiff’s prior low back
injuries and treatment and a subsequent fracture in her low back following an unknown
injury. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
¶2 On May 15, 2007, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants for personal
injuries that she sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 3, 2005. The
plaintiff alleged to have suffered the following injuries as a result of the accident: coccydynia
(pain in the coccyx/tailbone); injuries to the sacroiliac joint, or SI joint (joint between the
sacrum, which is a bone located above the coccyx, and the ilium, a bone in the pelvis);
injuries to the piriformis muscle (muscle in the gluteal region that connects the tailbone to
the greater trochanter of the femur); and injuries to the sacrococcygeal disc (located between
the sacrum and coccyx).
¶3 Before trial, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the defendants from
mentioning any injuries and medical treatment to portions of the plaintiff’s body unrelated
to the coccyx, sacroiliac joint, and piriformis muscle. Specifically, the plaintiff requested that
the defendants be prevented from introducing the following evidence: medical records
indicating that the plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Robert Meinders, a chiropractor, in
1999 through 2003 for spinal-related conditions primarily involving the cervical, thoracic,
and lumbar regions of her body; medical records indicating that the plaintiff had been
diagnosed with low back pain in 2001 by Dr. Rachel Feinberg, also a chiropractor; medical
records and deposition testimony from Dr. Adele Roth, the plaintiff’s primary care physician,
that she sought treatment for mid to low back pain in March 2005 after suffering a fall; and
medical records indicating that a CT scan performed in May 2007 revealed that the plaintiff
had suffered an old ununited anterior fracture of the superior end plate of L3 (located in the
lower back). The plaintiff moved to bar admission of this evidence on the basis that the
-2-
defendants had failed to present any medical or other competent evidence, as required
pursuant to Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer, 192 Ill. 2d 49 (2000), establishing a causal
connection between the plaintiff’s prior and subsequent medical conditions and the injuries
that she complained of suffering as a result of the motor vehicle accident.
¶4 Thereafter, the defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion in limine, arguing that
the plaintiff’s complaint of low back pain could not be solely attributed to the automobile
accident. In support of this argument, the defendants point to the following: (1) the plaintiff
had sought treatment for chronic low back pain from 1999 until at least a few months before
the motor vehicle accident; (2) the plaintiff’s medical records indicated that she had
complained of mid to low back pain, which felt like a “burning back pain,” after suffering
a fall in March 2005 and deposition testimony from Dr. Pereira, a pain management
specialist who treated the plaintiff following the motor vehicle accident, that pressure on a
nerve in the low back or arthritis in the low back could cause a burning pain that could
radiate down the leg; (3) a March 2005 X-ray report that indicated the plaintiff had a history
of low back pain and pelvic pain and Dr. Pereira’s deposition testimony that the pelvic area
was in the same region as the sacrum and coccyx; and (4) medical records and deposition
testimony indicating that the plaintiff had suffered a fracture to her lower back after the
accident, which was revealed in a CT scan performed in May 2007.
¶5 The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, but cautioned that the plaintiff could open
the door to the testimony by discussing the general condition of her back as opposed to the
more specific condition related to her lower back. In granting the motion, the court stated as
follows:
“I do believe that this is the kind of case where the order limiting this type of testimony,
the preexisting evidence, is appropriate because I think the doctors make it clear that it’s
not something for the lay person to sort out and that it is incorrect to–medically to
conclude that the preexisting is the cause of or has anything to do with the claimed
limited injury.”
The unedited versions of the depositions of Dr. Pereira and Dr. Roth were admitted as offers
of proof.
¶6 The following evidence concerning the plaintiff’s injuries was adduced at the five-day
jury trial. We will set forth only those facts pertinent to our disposition of the specific issues
on appeal.
¶7 The plaintiff was driving a Chevrolet minivan north on Route 159 in Belleville, Illinois,
on June 3, 2005, when she observed a tractor-trailer stopped at a stop sign on Route 15 at the
intersection of Route 15 and Route 159. Defendant Mark McCollum was driving the tractor-
trailer for his employer, EMJ. As the plaintiff approached the intersection, she noticed that
the tractor-trailer had started rolling forward. She was approximately two to three car lengths
from the tractor-trailer when she noticed it moving forward. In an attempt to avoid an
accident, the plaintiff “jammed” on her brake with her right foot, swerved, and honked the
horn. The tractor-trailer continued to accelerate, and the front end of the tractor-trailer
collided with the passenger side of the plaintiff’s vehicle.
¶8 Following the accident, the plaintiff began feeling pain in her “buttocks area by [her]
-3-
waist” that continued to get worse. The plaintiff’s husband picked her up from the accident
scene and took her to the emergency room at Memorial Hospital in Belleville. A pain
diagram indicating that the plaintiff experienced pain in her entire gluteal area, her lower
back, the tailbone area, and along the spine to the shoulder blades was part of the emergency
room records. Following a physical examination, the plaintiff was prescribed an anti-
inflammatory and a muscle relaxant.
¶9 On June 6, 2005 (the Monday following the accident), the plaintiff sought treatment from
Dr. Adele Roth. Dr. Roth had been the plaintiff’s primary care physician since 1998. The
plaintiff reported that she was experiencing pain in her left hip, pain in her back, pain in her
left leg, pain in her sacroiliac joint, and pain with walking and sitting. During the physical
examination, Dr. Roth noticed that the plaintiff’s thoracic and lumbar (lower back) areas
were abnormal and that she had pain down her left leg and tingling in the lower thoracic and
upper lumbar area of the spine (mid to lower back). Dr. Roth diagnosed the plaintiff with
lumbar spine strain, left leg paraesthesia, and thoracic strain. Dr. Roth prescribed a muscle
relaxer and an anti-inflammatory and ordered an MRI of the thoracic and lumbar spine.
¶ 10 The radiologist report from the MRI indicated that the plaintiff complained of low back
pain that radiated down to the left buttock and to the knee. The MRI findings revealed
multiple degenerative disc changes and an exaggeration of the normal lumbar lordosis. The
MRI did not visualize the coccyx area or the sacroiliac joint area. Dr. Roth prescribed
physical therapy and referred the plaintiff to a physiatrist.
¶ 11 The plaintiff attended physical therapy at Metro-East Rehabilitation and Sports Clinic.
During her initial visit on June 29, 2005, the plaintiff reported pain with sitting, pain
radiating down into her legs, and a burning pain in her left buttock. During a course of
treatment of medication and physical therapy, the plaintiff experienced some relief from the
pain in her lower back muscles, but the pain in the gluteal region remained.
¶ 12 The plaintiff sought treatment on July 1, 2005, from Dr. Anwar Khan, a physiatrist, as
a result of Dr. Roth’s referral. The plaintiff reported that she continued to have low back pain
and discomfort across her lower and middle back. She also reported that she experienced
pain in the left buttock region and had some radiation of the pain over the posterior aspect
of the thigh occasionally. The plaintiff further reported increased pain and discomfort with
coughing, sneezing, standing, sitting, and driving. During the physical examination, Dr. Khan
observed slight soreness around the sciatic notch, soreness in the bilateral sacroiliac joint,
and tightness and tenderness in the left piriformis muscle. Dr. Khan explained that these
areas were in the vicinity of where the coccyx, the sciatic nerve, the SI joint, and the
piriformis muscle come together and would generally be considered the gluteal region of the
body. Dr. Khan’s diagnosis was left sacroiliac strain with anterior torsion, meaning that the
pelvis had shifted forward and twisted. During subsequent visits, Dr. Khan used
manipulation techniques to attempt to mobilize the left sacroiliac joint, performed an
injection to the left sacroiliac joint, and ordered an X-ray of the sacrum and the coccyx area.
Dr. Khan prescribed continued physical therapy focusing on the tailbone area.
¶ 13 The radiologist report from the X-ray of the sacrum and coccyx revealed a probable
disruption of the sacrococcygeal disk synchondrosis (breakdown or disruption of the
-4-
ligament holding the connection between the sacrum and coccyx) with dorsal coccygeal
segment displacement (coccyx was moved backward).
¶ 14 Dr. Roth, who had seen the plaintiff on a regular, ongoing basis following the accident,
had referred the plaintiff to Dr. Suada Spirtovic, a pain specialist at the Pain Management
Center at Memorial Hospital, because the plaintiff had reported that the manipulation of the
tailbone area resulted in an aggravation of her pain. The plaintiff’s initial visit with Dr.
Spirtovic was September 26, 2005. During the physical examination, Dr. Spirtovic observed
that the plaintiff had tenderness in the left sacroiliac joint, tenderness in the sacrococcygeal
area, and tenderness in the piriformis muscles, which was worse on the left side. Dr.
Spirtovic diagnosed the plaintiff with displacement of the sacrococcygeal disk (disk that
connects the sacrum and coccyx) with left sacroiliac joint dysfunction and piriformis muscle
syndrome. Dr. Spirtovic continued the anti-inflammatory prescription and continued a series
of injections. Throughout the course of treatment, Dr. Spirtovic performed caudal epidural
steroid injections (entry point right at the tailbone), a left sacroiliac joint steroid injection,
a piriformis muscle steroid injection (injection into the piriformis muscle itself), four trigger
point injections (placed directly into the soft tissue in the areas of the plaintiff’s reports of
pain), and a sacrococcygeal ligament steroid injection. Dr. Spirtovic also prescribed physical
therapy with sacral and coccygeal maneuvering. The plaintiff testified that the treatment only
provided temporary relief to the pain and she was required to return on a regular basis for
ongoing injections and physical therapy.
¶ 15 On March 30, 2007, the plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Eugene Pereira, a pain
management specialist that also worked at the Pain Management Center. Throughout his
entire treatment of the plaintiff’s injuries, Dr. Pereira focused on treating her tailbone and the
sacroiliac joint. Dr. Pereira diagnosed the plaintiff with coccydynia, injury to the sacroiliac
joint, and injury to the piriformis muscle. Dr. Pereira explained that the three structures were
related and injury to one of the structures could affect the other two structures. He further
explained that trauma to one of the structures could result in problems with the other two
structures. Throughout the course of treatment, Dr. Pereira administered a series of
injections, prescribed continued physical therapy with sacral and coccygeal maneuvering, and
ordered internal manipulation of the coccyx.
¶ 16 Dr. Pereira opined that the plaintiff’s pain and symptoms in the coccyx and sacroiliac
joint were, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, causally related to the June 2005
motor vehicle accident. He opined that the plaintiff suffered from the following injuries as
a result of the accident: soft tissue and joint injuries of the sacrococcygeal junction, injury
to the sacroiliac joint, and injury to the musculature attached to the various structures in that
region. Dr. Pereira opined that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the
disruption and displacement in the coccygeal region was the direct result of the June 2005
motor vehicle accident. He noted that based on his review of the medical records, the
plaintiff began experiencing signs and symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of coccydynia
within a “very short time” following the motor vehicle accident. However, Dr. Pereira
admitted that the primary cause of coccydynia was a blunt force trauma to the coccyx, such
as a fall, and that the motor vehicle accident did not involve a blunt force trauma to the
coccyx. However, he explained that the motor vehicle accident could have caused dislocation
-5-
or torsion of the sacroiliac joint and an injury to the piriformis muscle and then consequential
coccydynia could have developed as a result of those injuries.
¶ 17 The plaintiff testified that she had never experienced any pain or symptoms in the coccyx,
the piriformis muscle, and the sacroiliac joint areas before the June 2005 motor vehicle
accident. She further testified that she had continuously experienced pain in those areas since
the accident. Dr. Roth opined that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the
plaintiff’s pain and symptoms in the gluteal region were the direct result of the June 2005
motor vehicle accident. Dr. Roth testified that the plaintiff had not reported to her any pain
and symptoms in the gluteal region, which included the coccyx, sacroiliac joint, and
piriformis muscle, before the motor vehicle accident. Instead, the first reports of pain in those
areas occurred following the June 2005 accident, and the plaintiff had consistently reported
pain in those regions during the course of her treatment.
¶ 18 Peter Anderson, an orthopedic surgeon, performed a physical examination of the plaintiff
and reviewed her medical records at the defendants’ request. Dr. Anderson reached the
conclusion that the plaintiff did not suffer coccydynia as a result of the motor vehicle
accident because she had not complained of anything that could be interpreted as coccydynia
until almost 10 weeks following the accident. Therefore, Dr. Anderson believed that the
plaintiff had developed coccydynia subsequent to the accident. Dr. Anderson explained that
he had searched the plaintiff’s medical records for any specific complaints concerning the
coccyx. He further explained that the plaintiff’s complaints of pain in the buttocks, piriformis
muscle, and sacroiliac were not diagnostic of coccydynia. Dr. Anderson noted that
coccydynia generally resulted from blunt force trauma to the coccyx and that it was
improbable that a motor vehicle accident could be the cause of the condition. Dr. Anderson
clarified that he did not disagree with the diagnosis of coccydynia; he just believed that the
plaintiff’s coccydynia was subsequently developed. Dr. Anderson’s opinions were limited
to the coccydynia issue.
¶ 19 After the evidence was presented, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a
directed verdict as to the defendants’ negligence. Therefore, the only issues for the jury to
consider were whether the defendants’ negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries,
and if so, the amount of damages that would compensate the plaintiff for her injuries.
Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and against the defendants, awarding
her $576,000 in damages. On March 26, 2012, the defendants filed a motion requesting the
trial court vacate the judgment and grant a new trial on the basis that the trial court erred by
granting the plaintiff’s motion in limine barring them from mentioning the plaintiff’s prior
low back injuries and treatment and the subsequent fracture. On May 16, 2012, the trial court
denied the defendants’ motion. The defendants appeal.
¶ 20 On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court erred by preventing them from
presenting evidence regarding the plaintiff’s prior low back pain and treatment and her
subsequent fracture in the low back on the basis that the defendants had failed to present
expert evidence establishing a causal connection between the injuries to the low back and the
injuries to her coccyx, sacroiliac joint, and piriformis muscle. The defendants argue that the
excluded testimony from the depositions of Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pereira established the
causal connection between the injuries and, therefore, they were not required to present
-6-
further expert testimony on the issue.
¶ 21 A trial court’s denial of a motion in limine is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Ford v. Grizzle, 398 Ill. App. 3d 639, 646 (2010). In Voykin, 192 Ill. 2d at 59, the
Illinois Supreme Court concluded that when a defendant seeks to introduce evidence of a
plaintiff’s prior injuries or medical conditions at trial, the defendant must first introduce
expert evidence demonstrating why the prior injury or medical condition is relevant to
causation, damages, or some other issue of consequence. The defendant must present medical
or other competent evidence to establish a causal connection between the evidence offered
and the complained-of injuries. Ford, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 646.
¶ 22 Here, the plaintiff claimed that she had suffered injuries to the following areas of her
body as a result of the motor vehicle accident: coccyx, piriformis muscle, and sacroiliac joint.
The defendants sought to introduce evidence that she was treated for pain in her low back
and pelvic area from 1999 until shortly before the motor vehicle accident and that she had
suffered a subsequent fracture in her low back (the L3 vertebra). The defendants sought to
present the following evidence indicating that the plaintiff had suffered these injuries to her
low back: medical records indicating that the plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Robert
Meinders, a chiropractor, in 1999 through 2003 for spinal-related conditions primarily
involving the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions of her body; medical records indicating
that the plaintiff had been diagnosed with low back pain in 2001 by Dr. Rachel Feinberg, also
a chiropractor; medical records and deposition testimony from Dr. Adele Roth, the plaintiff’s
primary care physician, that she sought treatment for mid to low back pain in March 2005
after suffering a fall; and medical records indicating that a CT scan performed on May 9,
2007, revealed that the plaintiff had suffered an old ununited anterior fracture of the superior
end plate of L3 (located in the lower back).
¶ 23 The defendants argue that the excluded deposition testimony of Dr. Anderson and Dr.
Pereira revealed the extent of the plaintiff’s low back injuries and the treatment that she had
received for those injuries and established a causal connection between the plaintiff’s low
back injuries and the injuries to her coccyx, sacroiliac joint, and piriformis muscle.
Therefore, the defendants argue that sufficient expert testimony was presented to causally
connect the injuries.
¶ 24 The defendants note that Dr. Anderson testified that the plaintiff’s back pain preexisted
the motor vehicle accident and was aggravated by the accident. The defendants further note
that Dr. Pereira testified that the plaintiff had a history of low back pain and pelvic pain and
that the pelvic area was in the same region as the sacrum and coccyx. Additionally, the
plaintiff’s medical records revealed that she had complained of mid to low back pain, which
felt like a “burning back pain,” after suffering a fall in March 2005 and that Dr. Pereira had
testified that pressure on a nerve in the low back or arthritis in the low back could cause a
burning pain that could radiate down the leg. The plaintiff had also suffered a fracture to her
low back after the motor vehicle accident.
¶ 25 With regard to Dr. Anderson’s testimony, we find that his testimony regarding the
plaintiff’s low back pain preexisting the date of the accident did not establish a causal
connection between the injuries to the coccyx, piriformis muscle, and sacroiliac joint and the
-7-
plaintiff’s complaints of low back pain and her subsequent fracture. We again note that the
plaintiff had only alleged injuries to her coccyx, piriformis muscle, and sacroiliac joint
during the trial and never claimed that she had injured or aggravated her previous low back
pain as a result of the accident. Further, we note that Dr. Anderson’s testimony and his
written report revealed that he had believed that the plaintiff’s coccygeal pain was unrelated
to the motor vehicle accident and that it was subsequently developed because his review of
her medical records indicated that the pain did not manifest until almost 10 weeks after the
accident. With regard to Dr. Pereira’s testimony, we note that Dr. Pereira testified that the
plaintiff’s medical records prior to the motor vehicle accident contained no reference to
injuries to the gluteal region as a result of her fall in March 2005. Dr. Roth, the plaintiff’s
family physician, testified that there was no correlation between the plaintiff’s complaints
of low back pain following her fall in March 2005 and her complaints of pain to the coccyx,
sacroiliac joint, and piriformis muscle following the motor vehicle accident. Further, Dr.
Pereira testified that there was no correlation between the finding that the plaintiff had
suffered a fracture after the motor vehicle accident and her complaints of pain to the coccyx,
sacroiliac joint, and piriformis muscle. Dr. Pereira noted that the fracture to the low back was
8 to 10 inches from the area treated as a result of the motor vehicle accident and opined that
the findings localized the pain to the lower back and not in the tailbone and gluteal region.
Therefore, we do not believe that sufficient expert testimony was presented to establish a
causal connection between the plaintiff’s injuries to her low back and her subsequent fracture
and the injuries to her coccyx, sacroiliac joint, and piriformis muscle.
¶ 26 The defendants further argue that they were not required to present expert testimony
establishing a causal connection because the plaintiff’s injuries were such that a layperson
could readily appraise the connection without expert assistance.
¶ 27 Expert testimony is not required in instances in which the trial court has determined that
a layperson can readily appraise the relationship between the injuries without expert
assistance. Voykin, 192 Ill. 2d at 59. In Felber v. London, 346 Ill. App. 3d 188, 193 (2004),
the Second District concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the
defendant to introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s preexisting injuries, i.e., neck pain, because
the evidence in the case was such that the jurors could readily appraise the relationship
between the preexisting injuries to the neck and the neck pain following the accident without
additional expert assistance and that the plaintiff and her treating physician had presented
specific testimony regarding the extent of the preexisting injuries and symptoms, the
treatments that she had received, and the relationship between preexisting conditions and the
symptoms she had experienced following the accident.
¶ 28 In the present case, we do not believe that the plaintiff’s injuries were such that a
layperson could readily appraise the relationship between injuries located in the low back and
injuries to the coccyx, piriformis muscle, and sacroiliac joint. We note that during the course
of a five-day trial, detailed expert medical testimony and anatomical drawings were presented
in an effort to educate the jurors as to the location of the specific areas of the injuries and the
nature and description of the various diagnoses involved. Consequently, we do not believe
that the exception set forth in Voykin applies in this case.
¶ 29 Last, the defendants argue that the plaintiff opened the door, during her testimony, to the
-8-
excluded testimony regarding her previous low back pain and subsequent fracture.
Specifically, the defendants point to the plaintiff’s testimony, during cross-examination,
where she testified that she had developed low back pain shortly after the motor vehicle
accident. She explained that the pain started “in the buttocks area and worked its way
upward.” When asked whether she used the term “lower back” to describe her pain in the
emergency room, she admitted that she had and that her low back included her buttocks.
Therefore, the defendants argue that the plaintiff opened the door to the excluded testimony
because she had testified that she considered her gluteal area part of her lower back. The
defendants rely on Janky v. Perry, 343 Ill. App. 3d 230 (2003), in support of their position.
¶ 30 In Janky, 343 Ill. App. 3d at 234, the Third District concluded that the rule established
in Voykin did not apply because the plaintiff’s attorney initially introduced the subject of the
plaintiff’s preexisting condition, i.e., a shoulder injury, during direct examination. The
plaintiff’s attorney had also presented testimony from the plaintiff’s treating physician stating
that the plaintiff had sought medical attention for her prior shoulder injury and that the
present shoulder condition predated the car accident. Id. at 235. Therefore, the court
concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the defendant’s attorney
to question the plaintiff concerning previously seeking medical attention for her shoulder
injury because her attorney opened the door on the subject of the preexisting injury and
subsequently introduced testimony from the treating physician concerning the injury. Id.
¶ 31 As a consequence of the plaintiff’s testimony in the present case, the defendants wanted
an opportunity to show that the plaintiff’s pain in her coccyx, sacroiliac joint, and piriformis
muscle preexisted the motor vehicle accident. However, the plaintiff had testified that she
had never experienced pain or symptoms in the coccyx area, the sacroiliac joint, or the
piriformis muscle. Her primary care physician since 1998 confirmed that the plaintiff had
never experienced pain and symptoms in these areas. The plaintiff’s medical records
consistently recorded reports of pain in the gluteal area following the motor vehicle accident.
Dr. Roth and Dr. Pereira both opined that the plaintiff’s injuries to her coccyx, sacroiliac
joint, and piriformis muscle were the result of the motor vehicle accident. Dr. Anderson, the
defendants’ expert, testified that he believed that the plaintiff developed coccydynia after the
motor vehicle accident. Therefore, we do not believe that the plaintiff’s comment regarding
her buttocks being a part of her low back opened the door for the defendants to present
medical records and testimony concerning previous complaints of low back pain being an
indication that the plaintiff had suffered from pain in her coccyx, sacroiliac joint, and
piriformis muscle before the motor vehicle accident. Therefore, we find that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by granting the plaintiff’s motion in limine. For the foregoing
reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County is hereby affirmed.
¶ 32 Affirmed.
-9-