Plantar fasciitis - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia
Plantar fasciitis is a painful inflammatory condition of the foot caused by excessive wear to the plantar fascia that supports the arch or by biomechanical ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Plantar _ fasciitis - 58k - Cached - Similar pages
Plantar fasciitis - MayoClinic.com
Plantar fasciitis — Comprehensive overview covers causes, prevention, self-care of this common type of heel pain. www.mayoclinic.com/health/ plantar - fasciitis /DS00508 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Your Orthopaedic Connection: Plantar Fasciitis
When your first few steps out of bed in the morning cause severe pain in the heel of your foot, you may have plantar fasciitis (fashee-EYE-tiss). ... orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00149 - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
plantar fasciitis : Information from Answers.com
plantar fasciitis Inflammation of the plantar fascia (the thick band of tissue along the sole of the foot) at its attachment point to the heel bone. www.answers.com/topic/ plantar - fasciitis - 84k - Cached - Similar pages
Plantar Fasciitis - Information About Plantar Fasciitis
Plantar fasciitis is a condition that causes heel and arch pain
Please, please, could you tab the records? And, maybe you could highlight the good parts. Page numbers are nice, too. A list of the many doctors, their specialties, and relation to the case could be really helpful. Thank you!!
Page numbers required.
Redact confidential PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION.
If many names involved, make a list witnesses and relation to the case.
RULE 401. DEFINITION OF "RELEVANT EVIDENCE"
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
RULE 402. RELEVANT EVIDENCE GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE; IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE
All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by Constitution, by statute, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible.
RULE 510 C ONFIDENTIALITY OF MENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION IN CIVIL CASES
Communication between a patient and a professional is confidential and shall not be disclosed in civil case
License revocation, medical malpractice
Waiver or claim for mental/emotional health services
Mental condition relevant to claim or defense
Abuse/neglect of Nursing Facility residents
This rule only governs disclosures of patient-professional communications in judicial or administrative proceedings . Whether a professional may or must disclose such communications in other circumstances is governed by Tex. Health & Safety Code §611.001-611.008.
When part of an act , declaration, conversation, writing or recorded statement is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by the other , and any other act, declaration, writing or recorded statement which is necessary to make it fully understood or to explain the same may also be given in evidence, as when a letter is read, all letters on the same subject between the same parties may be given. "Writing or recorded statement" includes depositions .
“ The rule of optional completeness -- which permits a party to introduce the entire writing after the other party has introduced only part of it -- is meant to guard against the confusion, distortion, or false impression that can arise from the introduction of part of [**9] a writing out of context . Livingston v. State , 739 S.W.2d 311, 331 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) ; Tex.R.Crim.Evid . 107 . 2 The purpose of the rule is to "reduce the possibility of the fact finder receiving a false impression from hearing the evidence of only part of an act." Kinnamon v. State , 791 S.W.2d 84, 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) .”
Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment . Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
Learned Treatises . To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by the expert in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits .
“ Unfortunately , almost none of the relevant epidemiological studies appear in the trial court record, though several were marked for identification and discussed at length during the trial. As learned treatises, excerpts from these studies could be read to jurors, but none were admitted as exhibits for jurors' independent review . But while the rules of evidence withhold learned treatises from jurors, that does not mean they should be withheld entirely from the record.”
The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs, otherwise admissible, which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation . The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.
In re B.B. , No. 05-98-02042-CV, COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 9353, December 17, 1999, Opinion Filed (Unpublished)
There is no [*14] dispute either that the underlying medical records , constituting 119 pages of the reporter's record, are voluminous or that Exhibit No. 3 is a summary of those records. Furthermore, the underlying medical records were admitted without objection. Thus, we conclude the State laid a proper predicate for admission of Exhibit No. 3, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. See State v. Buckner Constr . Co. , 704 S.W.2d 837, 842-43 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Moore v. Moore , 430 S.W.2d 247, 251-52 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We overrule Topkins's second issue.
Non-expert testimony sufficient to support medical causation because the testimony established, “…a sequence of events which provides a strong, logically traceable connection between the [collision] and the condition.”
Morgan v. Compugraphci Corp. , 674 S.W. 2d 729 (Tex. 1984).
General human experience and common sense to establish medical causation.
Ask yourself, do I really need this person to testify?
Is it cumulative of the medical records?
Garza v. Minyards, No. 05-95-01668-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS (Unpublished)
Garza had difficulty at trial understanding and answering questions about her injuries. She refused the assistance of an interpreter. Instead, she wished to read a portion of her medical records into evidence.
“ The trial court denied the request because it concluded that reading the records to the jury would be cumulative and inefficient, and would raise issues of optional completeness.”