This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ingram (P) was injured in a three-car collision involving herself and McCuiston (D). As a result of the accident, P sustained injuries to her neck and back. She also underwent psychiatric treatment for anxiety allegedly caused by the accident. P's orthopedist and psychiatrist both testified at trial. Miller, the orthopedist, testified on the basis of a series of hypothetical facts provided by P's counsel during the examination. P's counsel then asked Miller questions regarding his opinion as to whether such facts could have left P permanently injured, both physically and emotionally. Miller expressed an opinion that P could have suffered 'permanent anxiety.' D objected to the testimony on the grounds that 1) the hypothetical question contained facts which were not in evidence, and 2) the question was based in part on the opinion of Wright, P's psychiatrist.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.