Opinion
Nos. 58861-3-I; 60269-1-I.
April 7, 2008.
Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-2-35280-1, Michael Heavey, J., entered August 25, 2006.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Causation of injury is a medical question. Here, the only evidence presented was that all treatment received after a car accident was reasonable and necessary and related to the accident. The claim for medical expenses was thus uncontroverted, and the court did not err in directing a verdict thereon. The court also did not err in its award of fees under Mandatory Arbitration Rule (MAR) 7.3. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
Brad Martin and Christopher Farrell were involved in a car accident. Farrell stipulated to liability, and the parties tried the damages issues to an MAR arbitrator and then a jury.
Martin asked the court to direct a verdict for the full amount of his claimed medical expenses. Opposing the motion, defense counsel contended that inferences from the medical records supported different conclusions, which he wanted to argue. The court directed a verdict for the claimed expenses. The jury's eventual verdict included that amount as well as general damages. The court denied a new trial, and Farrell appeals.
The court directed a verdict for medical expenses in the amount of $14,459.56. The eventual verdict totaled $231,459.56.
ANALYSIS
Our review is de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court. Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 681, 153 P.3d 864 (2007). A motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted when, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the evidence will not sustain a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. (quoting Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521, 531, 70 P.3d 126 (2003)).
Farrell challenges the directed verdict, contending the evidence was contested and he was deprived of a jury determination on the issue. Farrell emphasizes that Martin had had a number of previous accidents and injuries for which he received treatment, including a history of hip, neck and back problems. But Martin's doctors described him as having fully recovered from his previous injuries, Page 3 and Farrell presented no contrary evidence.
Martin contends Farrell's argument is a challenge to proximate cause and was not preserved. We disagree. Farrell clearly challenged the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment and expenses, which is all he had to do.
He contends, however, that the jury was "entitled to conclude" that the injury and treatment were "not solely" caused by the accident because of the evidence of previous injuries and treatment. Farrell is incorrect. Causation is a medical question. Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wn.2d 91, 110, 26 P.3d 257 (2001) (expert testimony required for most questions of medical causation). The only expert testimony was that the expenses Martin sought to recover were for treatment of injuries caused by the accident.
Post accident, Martin, who is a police officer, suffered a neck injury in a training session at work involving techniques for subduing suspects. The resulting treatment costs were part of the amount the jury was directed to award. Farrell contends Martin did not establish that the post accident neck injury was related to the accident.
But again, whether a subsequent injury is new or is a flare-up of the tort-related injury is a medical question. Martin's doctors testified that when he had performed the same maneuver in past training exercises, he had suffered no injury, and that but for the accident, would likely have suffered none in the post accident exercise. They attributed the injury to instability of the neck caused by the car accident. Farrell did not rebut their testimony. Where the evidence is uncontroverted, there is nothing for the jury to decide. The court did not err in directing a verdict on special damages.
The court below awarded attorney fees under MAR 7.3. Farrell contends the court erred in its determination of reasonable hours and in adding a lodestar multiplier for the quality of representation. We see no abuse of discretion in the court's calculation of reasonable hours or the lodestar multiplier, and affirm the fees award. Martin is also entitled to his fees on appeal. Tribble v. Allstate Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 134 Wn. App. 163, 174, 139 P.3d 373 (2006).
Affirmed.