Pamela Walker v. Suzanne Scopel and Justin Scopel ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
14-14-00411-CV
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
6/10/2015 10:16:06 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
NO. 14-14-00411-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
14th COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS
6/10/2015 10:16:06 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
PAMELA WALKER, Clerk
Appellant,
v.
SUZANNE SCOPEL AND JUSTIN SCOPEL,
Appellees.
On Appeal from Cause Number 12-DCV-200283
From the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
REGINALD E. MCKAMIE, SR.
TBN. 13686750
1210 Antoine Drive, Suite 100
Houston, Texas 77055
Phone: (713) 465-2889
Fax: (713) 465-2894
Counsel for Appellant
i
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Pamela Walker
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Justin Scopel
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Reginald E. McKamie, Sr.
Attorney at Law
1210 Antoine, Suite 100
Houston, Texas 77055
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: IRESON & WEIZEL, PLLC
Lansford O. Ireson, Jr.
9720 Cypresswood, Suite 310
Houston, Texas 77070
PRESIDING JUDGE AT TRIAL: Hon. Brady G.Elliott
268th District Court
Harris County, Texas
1422 Eugene Heimann Cir.
Richmond, Texas 77469
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 1
ISSUES PRESENTED ..................................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 3
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................... 7
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 8
A. The trial court erred in admitting photographs of extremely limited
probative value that was substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury .............. 8
B. The jury was not at liberty to award no damages to Walker. The
evidence that Walker suffered some amount of physical pain and mental
anguish and physical impairment was undisputed .................................. 11
PRAYER ................................................................................................................... 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................ 15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................................ 15
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................... 16
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. 1993)................................. 9
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1995) ........................... 10
Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1988).............................................. 11
Hicks v. Ricardo, 834 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ)..
............................................................................................................................. 11
Insurance Co. of North Am. v. Myers, 411 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.1966).. .................... 10
Lopez v. Carrillo, 940 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1997). ................... 9
Lowery v. Berry, 269 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1954)....................................................... 11
RULES
Tex. R. Evid. 403 ...................................................................................................... 8
iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 19, 2012, Pamela Walker (“Walker”) filed suit against Justin
Scopel and Suzanne Scopel for damages she sustained in a car accident that
occurred on January 5, 2012. (CR 6-10).
On March 25, 2014, Walker non-suited all of her claims against Suzanne
Scopel as well as her claims for medical expenses (RR 2:5), lost wages (RR 2:5),
and punitive damages (RR 2:10) against Justin Scopel. Justin Scopel (“Scopel”)
stipulated to causing the accident. (RR 2:5).
Both parties announced ready for trial and proceeded only on the issue of
damages for past and future physical pain and mental anguish and past a future
physical impairment. On March 27, 2014, the jury awarded zero damages on each
of Walker’s claims. (CR 73).
The district court entered judgment that Walker take nothing on May 2,
2014. (CR 78). On May 27, 2014, Walker filed her notice of appeal. (CR 82).
1
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Did the court err by admitting photographs whose probative value was
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
issues, and misleading the jury over the Plaintiff’s objection?
2. Was the jury free to award zero damages when liability was stipulated and
there was undisputed evidence of damages caused by the collision?
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 5, 2012, Justin Scopel (“Scopel”) failed to control his speed and
collided with the rear of Pamela Walker’s (“Walker”) vehicle. It is undisputed that
Scopel caused the collison. (RR 2:5, 3:5). Walker’s neck whipped forward and her
back popped on impact. (RR 3:100). She called 911 and asked that an ambulance
be dispatched because her neck and back were hurt in the collision. (RR 3:100).
The ambulance arrived and then transported her to the hospital. (RR 3:15, 100).
At the hospital, Walker underwent a CAT scan (RR 3:101) and was
diagnosed with lumbar strain and cervical strain due to the collision. (P. Ex. 1).
Walker was involved in another motor vehicle accident approximately seven
months earlier, in June 2011. (RR 3:104). In that accident, she suffered a bruise on
her hand. (RR 3:105). She experienced some short-term back and neck pain from
that accident and sought a referral for physical therapy. (D. Ex. 2). However, the
pain resolved, she had no lingering neck or back problems (RR 3:105), and she
never sought treatment. (RR 3:123).
In contrast, after the collision with Scopel that is the subject of this case,
Walker experienced “intense pain” that she had not experienced prior. (RR 3:113).
She was no longer able to work in her garden (RR 3:91) as she had before the
accident. (RR 3:87). She was unable to do her daughter’s hair. (RR 3:92). She
was no longer able to sit through her son’s basketball games, and thus stopped
3
attending. (RR 3:92). She stopped cooking, no longer slept through the night, and
was no longer able to take regular trips with her husband, all of which she had
done prior to the collision. (RR 3:86, 91, 93).
After the collision, Walker went to see her primary-care physician, who
referred her to physical therapy. (RR 3:107). She saw a physical therapist
approximately 13 times. (RR 3:107). At trial, Renee Blalock (“Blalock”), the
therapist who conducted the majority of Walker’s sessions, testified. (RR 3:67-85).
Blalock testified about her assessment of Walker.
Objectively, there were found to be deficits in her following the
flexibility and her balance and her ability to perform what we call a
functional squat. There were deficits in the mobility of her lumbar
spine, which is her low back spine. There were -- there was weakness
found in her lower extremity muscles as well as in her spinal and core
musculature. There was also tenderness upon palpation, which means
upon feeling the muscles there was pain and tenderness and her range
of motion in her low back was limited with pain, as well. And that's
the objective part of it.
(RR 3:70). Blalock also testified unequivocally that, based on her experience and
training, Walker was not faking her injuries, as well as how she reached that
conclusion. (RR 3:77-79).
Walker stopped physical therapy when her primary doctor referred her to a
spine specialist, who in turn recommended that she see a chiropractor or an
acupuncturist for her pain. (RR 3:107). She did see an acupuncturist and also
began seeing Dr. Roberto Solis (“Dr. Solis”), a chiropractor. (RR 3:108).
4
Dr. Solis testified as both a fact witness and an expert witness at trial. (RR
3:19). He had reviewed Walker’s MRI (P. Ex. 3) and testified that it showed bone
spurring and a bulging disc, among other things. (RR 3:23). He further testified
that while most of the findings on Walker’s MRI could be attributed to
degeneration or simple aging, in his expert opinion, the bulging disc was a result of
trauma. (RR 3:25). This injury is consistent with the head whip one experiences in
a rear-end collision. (RR 3:26). Furthermore, even if the bulging disc had existed
prior to the collision with Scopel, that collision would have caused increased
trauma to it. (RR 3:26).
Dr. Solis testified about over 30 visits with Walker. (RR 3:20-51). He
testified that she was obviously in pain from the collision (RR 3:29), and that
treatment would ease the pain, but it would return several hours later. (RR 3:32).
Dr. Solis testified that at each of the visits, he conducted “a palpatory
assessment, basically just feeling for muscle tightness, muscle spasms, joints that
may not be moving the way that they're supposed to.” (RR 3:51). Each time he
conducted this assessment, he detected “very consistent pain, inflammation, a
tightness and tenderness in the upper neck and the back.” (RR 3:52).
At trial, Scopel rested behind Walker, calling no witnesses. (RR 3:133).
Scopel’s evidence consisted of just three exhibits, including photographs of
Walker’s vehicle admitted over her objection. (D. Ex. 1).
5
Scopel also presented an email showing that Walker had previously sought a
referral for physical therapy (RR 3:122, D. Ex. 2) and a portion of her medical
records showing that she had experienced some arm pain prior to the accident, but
that the accident had exacerbated it. (RR 3:129, D. Ex. 3).
6
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The trial court erred by admitting three photographs offered by Scopel. The
photographs were of extremely limited probative value to the amount of physical
pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment suffered by Walker, which were the
only questions before the jury. What little, if any, probative value the photographs
did have was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues, and misleading the jury.
The jury awarded Walker no damages after speculating that because the
photographs showed minimal damage to Walker’s vehicle, the collision must have
been low-impact. The jury further speculated that Walker could not have been
injured in the purportedly low-impact collision.
The jury was not at liberty to award Walker no damages when the evidence
was undisputed that the collision caused Walker some amount of damages for
physical pain and mental anguish and physical impairment.
7
ARGUMENT
A. The trial court erred in admitting photographs of extremely limited
probative value that was substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.
Walker moved to exclude three photographs (D. Ex. 1) of her vehicle taken
by Scopel after the collision. (RR 2:11). The court denied her motion and admitted
the photographs into evidence. (RR 2:12). The photographs were published to the
jury during Scopel’s testimony. (RR 3:15). Scopel’s counsel implied through his
questioning, and later argued that because her vehicle was not badly damaged, she
could not have been hurt. (RR 3:16, 4:20).
The probative value of the photographs was limited, at best. While they
clearly would have been relevant to any property damage claim, there was no
claim for property damage at issue in the trial. (CR 73). The photographs also
would have been probative of the issue of causation, but causation had been
stipulated. (RR 2:5).
The photographs were simply of extremely limited, if any, probative value to
Walker’s physical pain, mental anguish, or physical impairment, which were the
only questions before the jury. What little probative value they might have had
was clearly substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues, and misleading the jury and they should have been excluded under Tex.
R. Evid. 403.
8
Scopel introduced the photograph in order to invite the jury to speculate that
because the damage to Walker’s vehicle was relatively minor, the collision must
have been low-impact. The jury was then invited to draw the further speculative
conclusion that because the collision was purportedly low-impact, Walker must be
faking her injuries. (CR 4:20).
This is simply conjecture, not evidence. “Some suspicion linked to other
suspicion produces only more suspicion, which is not the same as . . . evidence.”
Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. 1993). Clearly the
danger for unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury was
great.
Furthermore, the probative value of the photographs to claims before the
jury was so minimal as to border on irrelevance. However, even if it could meet
that minimal standard, the probative value was so slight that the great danger for
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury substantially
outweighed it.
Proving causation between negligence and injury requires expert testimony.
Lopez v. Carrillo, 940 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1997).
9
To constitute evidence of causation, an expert opinion must rest in
reasonable medical probability. Insurance Co. of North Am. v. Myers,
411 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Tex.1966). This rule applies whether the
opinion is expressed in testimony or in a medical record, as the need
to avoid opinions based on speculation and conjecture is identical in
both situations.
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex. 1995).
Scopel’s opinion (RR 3:16) and his counsel’s opinion (RR 4:20) that the
photographs are evidence that the collision did not cause any damages for physical
pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment to Walker simply cannot meet this
standard.
Walker proved causation between Scopel’s negligence and her injuries
through Dr. Solis’ expert testimony. (RR 3:17-53). Scopel failed to negate
Walker’s proof either through his own expert or through his cross-examination of
Dr. Solis. The photographs simply lacked any meaningful probative value in an
area that is the domain of expert testimony.
Clearly the jury was confused and misled by the photographs. It is the only
way to explain their decision to award no damages whatsoever despite the
overwhelming evidence that the collision did indeed cause at least some amount of
physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment to Walker.
10
B. The jury was not at liberty to award no damages to Walker. The
evidence that Walker suffered some amount of physical pain and
mental anguish and physical impairment was undisputed.
A jury is not at liberty to award zero damages when the evidence is
undisputed that a plaintiff suffered injury. See Lowery v. Berry, 269 S.W.2d 795,
796–97 (Tex. 1954). If any of the jury’s damages findings is against the great
weight and preponderance of the evidence, the proper remedy is to reverse the
verdict and remand the case for a new trial. Hicks v. Ricardo, 834 S.W.2d 587, 590
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ).
The only evidence presented by Scopel, other than the improperly admitted
photographs, was an email and a portion of Walker’s medical records showing that
she had experience some pain prior to the collision. (D. Ex. 2, D. Ex. 3). As any
first year law student can tell you, it is well settled that a tortfeasor takes the
plaintiff as he finds her. See Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Tex.
1988) (a.k.a. the "eggshell skull rule"). None of Scopel’s evidence, including the
photographs, dispute Walker’s ample evidence that she suffered some amount of
damages as a result of the collision.
Whether or not Walker had experienced pain at some point in her life prior
to the collision does not absolve Scopel of responsibility for the damages he
caused. Even if Walker had some actual pre-existing condition, which Scopel’s
11
meager evidence does not show, he is still responsible for her damages to the
degree that his negligence aggravated the condition.
In his expert testimony, Dr. Solis conceded that he could not say for certain
that Walker did not have a torn disc prior to the collision with Scopel. However,
he stated unequivocally, “every single accident you have will cause increased
trauma to those particular areas. It basically is like pouring more fuel on the fire.”
(RR 3:26-27). This simple fact is not disputed or called into question in any way
anywhere in the record. With causation of the collision conceded, this evidence
alone renders the jury’s award of no damages as against the great weight and
preponderance of the evidence.
The jury awarded Walker no damages for past or future physical pain and
mental anguish despite undisputed evidence that she had suffered physical pain and
mental anguish as a result of Scopel’s negligence.
Dr. Solis testified that Walker was obviously in pain. (RR 3:29). He also
conducted “several orthopedic tests that were positive for inflamed joints, pain in
the neck, and the low back.” (RR 3:21). On each of the more than 30 times he saw
her, he conducted a palpatory assessment. Each and every time, he found “very
consistent pain, inflammation, a tightness and tenderness in the upper neck and the
back.” (RR 3:52).
12
Blalock testified that she objectively found “pain and tenderness and
[Walker’s] range of motion in her low back was limited with pain, as well.” (RR
3:70). She further testified that she was trained to detect people faking pain (RR
3:77), how she detects it (RR 3:78-79), and that Walker was not faking her pain.
(RR 3: 77-79).
Gregory Walker testified that when he first saw Walker after the collision, “I
found my wife was in pain, discomfort.” (RR 3:90). He also testified about having
to massage his wife’s back to relieve the pain from back spasms. (RR 3:90-91).
Walker herself testified to the “intense pain” she experienced after the
collision that she had never experienced prior. (RR 3:113). She also testified that
while she had experienced slight numbness prior to the collision, she had not
experienced the type of intense pain she had afterwards. (RR 3:133).
As to future physical pain and mental anguish, Walker testified that even at
the time of trial, she had to wear patches to control the pain and spasms. (R 3:133).
The fact that the pain persisted more than two years after the collision makes it a
near certainty that it would continue after the trial and that she would experience at
least some amount of physical pain and mental anguish in the future.
The jury also awarded Walker no damages for past or future physical
impairment despite undisputed evidence that she had suffered physical impairment
as a result of the collision.
13
In addition to seeing bone spurring and disc bulging in Walker’s MRI (RR
3:23), Dr. Solis detected inflamed joints (RR 3:21), general inflammation, and
tightness and tenderness when he examined Walker after the collision. (RR 3:52).
Blalock also testified to Walker’s physical impairment. After the collision,
Walker objectively had flexibility deficits, mobility deficits, and muscle weakness
in her spinal and core musculature. (RR 3:70). She also had difficulty tolerating
exercises and “required frequent position changes due to difficulty tolerating one
position for longer than five minutes.” (RR 3:70-71).
Gregory Walker provided ample evidence of Walker’s physical impairment.
He testified that prior to the collision, Walker gardened. (RR 3:87). After the
collision, Walker was no longer able to garden. (RR 3:91). He testified that prior
to the collision, he and Walker took regular trips (RR 3:86). After the collision,
she was unable to sit for the period of time required to travel on a regular basis.
(RR 3:91).
He testified that Walker did not feel physically up to doing her daughter’s
hair after the collision (RR 3:92) and that she was no longer able to attend her
son’s basketball games. (RR 3:92, 95). Furthermore, she stopped cooking and
stopped sleeping through the night as a result of the physical impairment she
suffered as a result of the collision. (RR 3:93).
14
Gregory Walker also provided some evidence of future physical impairment.
He testified that his wife has gotten better, but she still needed to stretch more and
was still trying to regain a sense of normalcy. (RR 3:95).
Walker’s own testimony was that she had experienced no lingering neck or
back problems from her previous collision. (RR 3:105). She testified that she
could no longer drive or ride in a car for more than an hour under normal
circumstances after the collision. (RR 3:111). She testified that she could no
longer engage in regular sexual activity with her husband (RR 3:114), which he
corroborated. (RR 3:91).
She also testified that she had spasms while testifying at the trial itself (RR
3:133), making it a near certainty that the impairment would continue in the future.
None of the evidence that Walker sustained damages in the collision was
disputed in any way. All of Scopel’s evidence, including the photographs (D. Ex.
1), the email (D. Ex.2), and the excerpt of Walker’s medical records (D. Ex. 3), go
to the degree to which she suffered damage, not whether she suffered damage.
The evidence is thus undisputed that Walker suffered some damages as a result of
the collision and the jury was not at liberty to award zero damages.
15
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests this honorable
court to reverse the judgment, grant a new trial, and remand this case to the district
court.
Respectfully submitted,
Law Offices of Reginald E.
McKamie, Sr., P.C.
/s/ Reginald E. McKamie, Sr_____
REGINALD E. MCKAMIE, SR.
TBN: 13686750
1210 Antoine, Suite 100
Houston Texas 77055
(713) 465-2889
(713) 465-2894 fax
Attorney for Appellant:
PAMELA WALKER
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this instrument has been served upon opposing
counsel.
/s/ Reginald E. McKamie, Sr_____
REGINALD E. MCKAMIE, SR.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This document complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. P.
9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-
point for text and 12-point for footnotes. This document also complies with the
word-count limitations of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) because it contains 3,422 words.
/s/ Reginald E. McKamie, Sr____
REGINALD E. MCKAMIE, SR.
17
APPENDIX
18
Texas Rules of Evidence
Rule 403.
Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, or Other Reasons
The 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.
08S i; I
J.IBIHX3 l
S,J.NVON3:130
£0::JS
Walker, Pamela D (MR # 07282551) Encounter Date: 06/28/2011
Author Note Status Last Update User Last Update DatefTime
Cherice M Conley-Harvey, Signed Cherice M Conley- 6/30/2011 9:50 AM
MD Harvey, MD
Telephone Encounter
From: WALKER. PAMELA 0
To: Cherice M Conley-Harvey, MD
Sent: Tue Jun 2 8, 2011 9:47 AM
Subject: Physical Therapy
Good Morning,
I wa$ in a hiVrun car accident last week and in need of a physical therapist. Would you please schedule me
with one? I injured my left hand however; my neck and back are beginning to hurt. Thanks!
Please reply_ lo this message by electronic messaging.
- • '" •n ""'"n"'"' ee I ' n .._.:_ .. _ ... t... •• r _ T - - - r n d Tr. A C l - · C l , I,, .., .::.A n A AA
KELSEY SEYBOLD CLI N IC - ivIEDICAL [5442558-04] 90
16 Clinic LAKES AT 610 WALKER.PAMELA D
8900 LAKES AT 610 MRN: 07282551
HOUSTON, TX 77054-2525 DOB: 12114/1966, Sex: F
KSC COMPLETE CHART Enc. Date:04/03/12
Patient Information (continued)
Meds Comments as of 2127/2012
2127/2012 Pt. Stopped reflux med. One week ago. Takes Nutrilite multi-vii.
Ordered Medications
Disp Refills Start End
Pregabalin (LYRICA) 25 MG OR CAPS 60 each 0 4/3/2012 5/4/2012
(Discontinued)
Sig: 1 po hs for one week, then bid
All Results
No results found
Vitals - Last Recorded
Ht Wt BMI LMP
5' r {1.702 m) 140 lb (63.504 kg) 21.93 03/1212012
kg/m2
Vitals History Recorded
Progress Notes
Keosha Albert Cma I Certified Medical Assistant I 4/3/2012 9: 11 AM Signed
Referral? Self referral
Chief complairit:
Chief Complaitit
Patient with
• Back Pain
Pain: 2110
A) Chief complaint or Subjective:
Where is your pain?: left arm pain for approx. 4-5 years, left arm tingling and numbness, leg tingling
and numbness - emg 2010 neg for peripheral neuropathy. emg 2011 of left upper limb was normal. Reports
aching and tingling/numbness in left arm is worse following an mva in early 2012.
When did this problem start? 3 month(s); sx also present prior for approx. 4 years, no inciting
event 4 years ago
How did this pain start? gradually 4 years ago
Any inciting event?: yes - nothing in particular but cites an mva 3 mo ago making left arm
symptoms worse
Is the pain improving, worsening, or stable over time?: worsening left shoulder and neck/lower
back improving .
Have you had this pain before? - reports no initially, but later states she's had left arm tingling
and numbness for several years.
DEFENDANT'S
Typical pain severity: 2/10
Printed on 5/31/2013 6:41 AM I EXHIBIT Page 35 of 80
lJ 3
KELSEY SEYBOLD CLINIC - MEDICAL [5442558-04] 36
WALKER,PAMELA D
9' Kelsey-Seybold Clinic MRN: 07282551
HOUSTON, TX 77054-2525 DOB: 12/14/1966, Sex: F
KSC COMPLETE CHART Enc. Date:04/03112
Patient Information (continued)
Progress Notes (continued)
Pain severity during flare-ups: 4/10
How often do you get a flare up? Several times a week and Factors that cause a flare up:
prolonged sitting/lifting and bending
What is the duration of your pain? M1nutues/hours/daily
Describe your pain: Burning arm/shoulder, Dull, Pins/Needles back, Numbness arms and
shoulder
What activity increases your pain? Sitting, Bending, Lifting, Driving
What have you tried for this pain? Rest, Heat. Physical Therapy, Medications - (ibuprofen).
exercise
Prior experience with neurontin: Caused suicidal ideation; SSRI, sx did not improve
Do you have any .. Weakness yes .. left arm and hand and Numbness yes - left arm and hand
What position/activities improve the pain?: None in particular
Which doctors have you seen for this problem? Physical Therapist and Neurologist
What diagnostic tests have you had for this pain? MRI Scan: Results: and CT Scan: Results:
Blood Thinners:
Allergies
Allergen Reactions
• Azithromycin
Felt like her throat was closing up.
• Codeine Rash
• Nitrofurantoin Hives
Current Outpatient PrescrfpUons
Medication Sig Dispense Refill
• Ergocalciferol 50000 UNIT OR Take 1 capsule by mouth once a 4capsule 1
CAPS week
• Ibuprofen 600 MG OR TABS Take 600 mg by mouth every 6
hours as needed
• IRONOR Take by mouth •
• OMEPRAZOLE 40 MG OR CPDR TAKE 1 CAPSULE BY MOUTH 30 capsule · 0
EVERY MORNING 1/2 HOUR
PRIOR TO BREAKFAST
• Venlafaxine HCI (EFFEXOR XR) Take 1 capsule by moulh daily 30capsule 2
37.5 MG OR CP24
Printed on 5/31/2013 6:41 AM Page 36of80
KELSEY SEYBOLD CLINIC - lvfEDICAL [5442558-04] 37