In March, 2022, Defendant John Szmitkowski rear-ended Plaintiff Young An. An claimed permanent injuries to his back, right shoulder and right knee, culminating in back surgery in 2024. Discovery revealed that he had a prior car accident in 2002, also with a back injury. An denied any other injuries at his deposition. After post-deposition discovery, Szmitkowski’s attorney identified an MRI invoice for An’s left shoulder and left knee from 2023. An’s counsel declined to explain the previously undisclosed accident or records. Further discovery into the source of the MRIs uncovered a third car accident in 2023, as well as a lawsuit filed by the same plaintiff’s firm. At trial, An produced three experts to testify that the accident caused his permanent injuries. Relying on the 2023 accident records, Szmitkowski’s attorney cross-examined An and his experts, impeaching their credibility. The jury found Szmitkowski 100% at fault but did not find An had sustained a permanent injury and awarded him no money damages. The primary issue in An v. Szmitkowski, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2227 (App. Div. Oct. 2, 2026), was whether the trial judge abused his discretion in letting Szmitkowski’s attorney use the 2023 records to cross-examine An and his experts.
Before trial, the defense identified the records from the 2023 accident and told An they would use them at trial to impeach An and his experts. An opposed, claiming the 2023 records were irrelevant and inadmissible because they identified injuries unrelated to those from his 2022 accident. The judge disagreed. He allowed Szmitkowski to use the records, but only for cross-examination, not as evidence on their own. The judge reasoned that An’s claim they were irrelevant to his 2022 accident required an expert’s conclusion, not his attorney’s opinion.
At trial, An’s three experts all testified that An’s injuries were permanent and caused by the 2022 crash. However, each expert admitted on cross-examination that he was unaware of the 2002 or 2023 accidents, but that did not change his opinion that An’s injuries from the 2022 accident were permanent and causally related. On cross-examination, An admitted to all three accidents and, despite a record from the 2023 accident saying he was “pain free” prior to that accident, claimed his injuries from his 2022 lawsuit all came from his 2022 accident. After both parties rested, the jury returned their verdict finding Szmitkowski 100% negligent for the happening of the accident, but denied An any money damages. An appealed.
On appeal, An argued that the 2023 records were irrelevant to his 2022 injuries and the trial court should not have allowed Szmitkowski to use it during cross-examination. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determinations. It underscored its role in ruling on a trial court’s evidence determinations on an “abuse of discretion” standard; that it may only reverse such a determination when it is made “without a rational explanation.” The Court further noted that when a plaintiff accuses a defendant of causing a medical condition, the defendant may impeach the plaintiff and his experts with evidence of prior medical conditions to allow a jury to determine the factual cause of the injury. Similarly, a defendant has the right to provide evidence that an injury was caused by a prior accident, particularly in cross-examination, because it is effective in a “jury’s search for the truth.” The Court disagreed with An’s claims that the 2023 records were irrelevant. Based on the testimony, the Court found that the jury could find An’s injuries were causally related to all three accidents as his complaints and difficulties with activities of daily living after his 2023 accident were similar and associated with his complaints of the 2022 and 2002 accident. Also, by not admitting the 2023 records into evidence and limiting their use to cross-examination, the Court found the trial court properly used its discretion to allow Szmitkowski the opportunity to impeach An and his experts about the 2023 accident and limit it to cross-examination rather than for its own substance.
This case highlights the importance of a thorough investigation into a plaintiff’s claims through his medical records and his deposition. Here, the plaintiff’s entire case imploded because the defense attorney found a single MRI invoice in discovery. Identifying any treatment for body parts not alleged in the suit and prior/subsequent accident through medical records of treating providers, primary care providers, pharmacists, or an ISO search, then expanding that search for any other doctors may identify other, related treatment. A plaintiff’s later denial of any such prior or subsequent injury in a deposition sets the foundation on which his, and his experts, credibility may eventually crumble.
