What Do You Mean It's Not Covered: The Doctor's Themselves Disagree Over What's Necessary

Naftel, testifying on behalf of Griffis, stated that he performed the MRI on Griffis for the purpose of discovering whether there had been any local progression of the cancer into the fat around the prostate gland or any metastasis into the pelvic region or into the lymph nodes. He testified that the staging of the disease would, in turn, affect the course of treatment. He testified further that, in his opinion, the MRI used in evaluating Griffis' condition was the safest and most effective method of obtaining the information sought and that it was superior to other existing means by which the information could be obtained. Moody, also testifying for Griffis, stated that the MRI, in conjunction with other diagnostic tests performed, enabled him to determine the proper treatment for Griffis and that he determined that Griffis would benefit from a radical prostatectomy -- the removal of the entire prostate gland. Moody testified further that the MRI had helped him determine that Griffis' cancer was at a "potentially curable stage." The trial court granted Blue Cross' motion for a directed verdict on the bad faith claim, but denied Blue Cross' motion for a directed verdict on the contract claim and submitted that claim to the jury, which returned a verdict for Griffis in the amount of $968.86. Griffis appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals, contending that the trial court had erred in dismissing his bad faith claim. Blue Cross also appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in submitting the contract claim to the jury.