Opinion
No. 04C-05-311-FSS.
Submitted: September 27, 2006.
Decided: December 8, 2006.
Steven J. Stirparo, Esquire.
Richard D. Abrams, Esquire Heckler Frabizzio.
Re: Gloria Hill v. Rebecca P. Peterson, C.A. No. 04C-05-311-FSS Upon Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial or Additur DENIED
This decides Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial or Additur. As you know, Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident on May 28, 2002, when her car was rear-ended by Defendant. Plaintiff sued for damages, alleging that Defendant's negligence proximately caused serious, permanent injuries, including neck and low back pain that radiates throughout her body and muscle spasms in her low back.
After a three day trial, a jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff, including $26,250 in compensatory damages. Plaintiff filed a timely motion for new trial or, alternatively, for additur. Plaintiff contends that the verdict does not fairly compensatePlaintiff for the pain and suffering she has endured, including depression. Nor does it compensate her for the very substantial medical expenses she has paid and will pay in the future. Plaintiff also contends that the jury was unfairly influenced by Defendant'scross-examinationandargumentimplyingthat Plaintiff was malingering.
I.
Plaintiff presented evidence, especially her testimony, supporting a far more substantial damages award. The evidence, however, was far from conclusive. The jury had ample reason to discount not only Plaintiff's subjective testimony, but also to view her treating physician's opinions with skepticism. For example, the jury could have concluded that Plaintiff's physician was too eager to provide continuing treatment for any pain that Plaintiff claimed. The physician's possible bias was highlighted by the way he dismissed the possibility that some of Plaintiff's complaints might be related to a preexisting condition, about which the physician learned on the eve of trial. In short, jury verdicts are entitled to a strong presumption that they are correct. Plaintiff has not overcome the presumption.
Young v. Frase, 702 A.2d 1234, 1236-1237 (Del. 1997). See also Med. Center of Delaware v. Lougheed, 661 A.2d 1055, 1061 (Del. 1995).
II.
As for Plaintiff's concern about Defendant's portraying her as a malingerer, Defendant's questioning and arguments were not unfair. The court appreciates Plaintiff's sincerity. Even so, Plaintiff's physical complaints were barely supported by her physician's testimony. He viewed her as one of the rare individuals whose symptoms are not supported by objective tests. Thus, the physician discounted the objective testing, which did not support Plaintiff's subjective symptoms and the physician's opinions.
Defendant's cross-examination of Plaintiff's physician elicited his concession that, especially in light of her atypical test results, it was possible that Plaintiff's complaints were motivated by secondary gain, a damages award. Plaintiff appeared in court wearing a cervical collar, despite her physician's testimony that it was not medically indicated and she should not have worn one.
III.
Although the court would have understood if the jury's award had been substantially higher, the court also understands the verdict. In passing, the court mentions that Plaintiff's claim was subject to Superior Court Civil Rule 16.1 arbitration. The law-trained arbitrator awarded Plaintiff $24,000. Having presided over the trial, the court does not view the arbitrator's and the jury's similar assessments as merely coincidental. In any event, while the court understands how Plaintiff could have expected a larger verdict, the court also understands that the actual verdict was justifiable. In hindsight, the court sees no reason to disturb it.
IV. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial or Additur is DENIED .
IT IS SO ORDERED.