|
Sometimes juries make interesting decisions
that need to be sorted out by the Tennessee Appellate Courts. The recent case of Khadijeh
Naraghian v. Darryle K. Wilson, No. W2014-02002-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 7012526
(Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) dealt with an automobile accident that occurred
in Shelby County Tennessee. In this
case, the plaintiff alleged the defendant struck the plaintiff’s vehicle in the
rear causing a neck injury to the plaintiff due to the accident. Liability for the accident was disputed based
upon the theory
of alleged comparative fault of the plaintiff. Regardless, there were approximately
$13,440.00 of medical bills that were not contested by the defendant by any
substantive counter medical proof.
Ultimately, the jury found in favor of the
plaintiff and awarded a total of $7,831.67.
The jury also found the plaintiff was 44.58% at fault for the accident
and therefore the trial court reduced the award to $4,340.31. The question on appeal was whether the jury
award was disproportionate to the amount of damages actually proved at trial.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals found the
award was not appropriate based on the evidence and therefore the award of
damages was reversed. The Court noted
that it was basically undisputed that the plaintiff incurred approximately
$13,440.00 in medical expenses. The plaintiff
asserted the jury cannot simply arbitrarily disallow part of the medical expenses
that were incurred as a result of the injury.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed.
The Court found the following:
As we have already
stressed, there was no evidence in this case rebutting the necessity or
reasonableness of the charges billed by Dr. Burford. His testimony was
essentially unimpeached. Because we cannot reconcile the jury's verdict with
the undisputed evidence that was presented, we must vacate the trial court's
judgment and remand this matter for a new trial.
Id.
at 5.
This case is certainly interesting because
it shows that a jury cannot disregard competent uncontested proof on the amount
of damages (specifically medical bills).
When medical bills and expenses are established at trial and no party
contests the amount of the medical bills or the reasonableness and necessity of
the medical treatment, the jury cannot simply reduce the clearly established
damages on their own. The Tennessee
Court of Appeals found that “because the jury damages verdict is not at or
above the lower limit of the range of reasonableness, we hereby vacate the
trial court’s judgment on the jury’s verdict and remand this matter for a new
trial.” Id.
at 5.
This is certainly an interesting case for
both the plaintiff and defense perspectives.
From a defense perspective, it may be better to agree to an additur for an award
that is below the clearly established medical bills when dealing with a jury
award less than the damages proved at trial.
Otherwise, there is a risk of a new jury trial after an expensive appeal. On the plaintiff’s side, it is certainly
appropriate to file an appeal in a case like this based on this established
precedent. The bottom line is that a
jury cannot disregard medical bills that are clearly established by the
plaintiff when determining the appropriate damages in a case.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.
|