Richard William Bangert v. Dustin L. Rees (2021)

Citation: Richard William Bangert v. Dustin L. Rees (2021)
Parent Document: Richard William Bangert v. Dustin L. Rees (2021)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5173908/richard-william-bangert-v-dusti... ↗

Full Text

1,372 chars

1
  Respondents argue that the medical records could not have established causation, but rather Bangert would
have had to present expert medical testimony. The Missouri Supreme Court has indicated otherwise: “[W]e
see no reason why a proper expert medical opinion contained in a hospital record should not be accorded
dignity equal to that of a similar opinion from the witness stand[.]” Allen v. St. Louis Public Serv. Co., 285
S.W.2d 663, 667; see also Knipp v. Nordyne, Inc., 969 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (noting
expert opinions contained in medical records agreed regarding causation), overruled on other grounds by
Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003).
2
  We note that one set of medical records are included in the legal file as an exhibit to Bangert’s initial
petition, which he later abandoned by filing an amended petition that attached no exhibits. Even assuming
arguendo that we can properly examine these records, and that these records are the same records Bangert
attempted to introduce at trial, they still do not include a list of charges or payments Bangert made for
treatment he received. Bangert also attempted to introduce evidence of a charge for $175 for an ambulance,
which included a report from a paramedic who examined him. The trial court excluded this record and it is
not part of the record on appeal.

Other Sections in This Document (179)

Full Text