Our legal system runs based on a principle called stare decisis. It means "to stand by things decided." Courts implement stare decisis by sticking to prior rulings and rationales.

Predictability and continuity sound good. But, in practice, reiterating and repackaging prior rulings replaces reasoned nuance with bright-line rules.

A good example involves physician testimony. It's reflexive for most judges: If there's an issue involving injury, treatment, or the cost of treatment, judges insist on testimony from a health care provider.

What it means is that most injured people have to arrange for physician testimony before a judge will allow a jury to award damages for injuries suffered in a collision.

It makes sense that physician testimony would be important to establish the link between a motor vehicle collision and something unexpected, like cardiac arrhythmia.

But if someone suffers a neck injury after being rear-ended, is there really any reason for the court to require a physician to testify at trial?

[Obviously, there may be a benefit--from the perspective of the plaintiff--to calling a doctor to convince the jury about the nature and extent of the injury. But should it be an actual requirement, or just an election, the plaintiff is allowed to make?]

Fortunately, it appears that some judges are refocusing on the original reasoning/rationales instead of relying on the reductionistic formulations.

On February 2, 2026, the Court of Appeals said enough is enough. In Lowe v. Ace Hardware, it reversed a decision from the Superior Court. The Superior Court dismissed a suit because the plaintiff--who had been hit by a van--didn't offer testimony from any doctors explaining that a motor vehicle collision caused injury.

It explained: "[W]hen the results of an alleged act of negligence are within the experience and observation of an ordinary lay person, the trier of fact can draw a conclusion as to the causal link without resort to medical testimony."

That's consistent with earlier rulings: "[A]n injured person can testify regarding the subjective aspects of an injury and to the limitations of his physical movements. The weight of such testimony is for the jury."

[Related: Courts have also explained that past and future wage/income loss do not require physician testimony. It's enough that the injured person provide testimony about how the subjective aspects of an injury and the limitations associated with the injury affect their work.]

It's nice to see judges cut through the distortion that frequently comes from over-simplification and get back to what makes common sense.

A doctor may be required if there's a medical issue. And doctors may help to bolster what the plaintiff explains from the perspective of lived experience. But in most cases, plaintiffs should get to make the call whether they want to call a doctor to tell the jury about their injuriesWrite your text here...