holding that the "conflicting medical testimony" about whether plaintiff's pre-existing injuries had resolved coupled with the "considerable conflicting and inconsistent testimony from [the plaintiff] and all of his witnesses concerning [the plaintiff's] employment history, earnings, injuries, and treatments" allowed the jury to reject the defense expert's opinion that the plaintiff had sustained some degree of injury, given that the defense expert's opinion was based on the plaintiff's subjective complaints.

In Kossol, the plaintiff argued that the jury was not free to disregard the medical testimony because all of the medical experts agreed that he was injured in the accident.