Did the Fact That a Medical Examination Accrued Long Time Prior to Trial Weakened the Doctor's Testimony ?
In Molitor v. Jaimeyfield, 251 Ill. App. 3d 725, 190 Ill. Dec. 933, 622 N.E.2d 1250 (1993), the court appeared to embrace the notion that the recency of an examination goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony.
In Molitor, we considered whether the trial court had erred in instructing the jury concerning damages for the plaintiff's future pain and medical expense.
The defendant argued that the physician's testimony concerning the permanency of the plaintiff's injury was based upon an examination that occurred 18 months prior to trial.
The Court noted that if the defendant believed that a lengthy time interval between the examination and the time of trial weakened the testimony concerning permanency, then the defendant should argue that point to the jury. Molitor, 251 Ill. App. 3d at 729.
The Court then concluded that the time interval of 18 months was an issue of the weight of the evidence and did not render the testimony inadmissible. Molitor, 251 Ill. App. 3d at 729.