Opinion
No. 4-499 / 03-1461.
August 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Annette J. Scieszinski, Judge.
In this motor vehicle accident case, plaintiff asserts the trial court's damage award is inadequate. AFFIRMED.
A. Zane Blessum, Winterset, and Catherine K. Levine, Des Moines, for appellant.
Gayla R. Harrison of Harrison McKay Moreland Webber, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Jennifer Olsen-Wolf was injured in a motor vehicle accident. She sued Matthew Luke, the driver of the other vehicle, who conceded liability during a bench trial. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Ms. Olsen-Wolf. She filed a Motion to Enlarge and Amend Verdict pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). The motion was denied. She appeals, asserting the judgment inadequately compensates her for past and future pain and suffering and for past loss of bodily function. After reviewing for the correction of errors at law, see Poole v. Hawkeye Area Cmty. Action Program, Inc., 666 N.W.2d 560, 565 (Iowa 2003), we affirm the trial court's judgment.
I. Background
On June 10, 2000, Ms. Olsen-Wolf was in Fairfield, Iowa for a work-related training on aromatherapy. While she was eastbound on Kirkwood Avenue, Mr. Luke's vehicle struck her vehicle when he made an improper left turn. Damage to both vehicles was minimal. Ms. Olsen-Wolf drove herself to the hospital, where she was diagnosed with whiplash. She received a neck collar and painkillers.
Upon returning home to Missouri, she was treated by Dr. Jason Blumenfeld, a chiropractic physician. Dr. Blumenfeld treated her extensively from June to October 2000. In deposition testimony, Dr. Blumenfeld stated that Ms. Olsen-Wolf was "showing signs of recovering" and had a "fairly good prognosis." Dr. Blumenfeld provided no further treatment, although he employed Ms. Olsen-Wolf on a temporary basis.
In connection with a workers' compensation claim, Ms. Olsen-Wolf saw Dr. Frank O. Petkovich for an evaluation in August 2000. Dr. Petkovich concluded she would have some residual pain, but that she "completely recovered," had no permanent disability, and could return to work without restriction.
In December 2000, while early in pregnancy, Ms. Olsen-Wolf saw an orthopedic specialist, who recommended that she discontinue chiropractic therapy and begin physical therapy for "reconditioning." She did not seek physical therapy. Ms. Olsen-Wolf's pregnancy was difficult. She was on bed-rest for several months, frequently hospitalized, and gained weight. In July 2001, her daughter's delivery was induced. In December 2001, she saw Dr. Mark A. Lichtenfeld, who concluded that she had a permanent partial disability.
II. Discussion
The trial court found Ms. Olsen-Wolf incurred compensable expenses and awarded the following damages: $7,903 in past medical expenses; $1,120 for lost wages; $2,500 for past loss of bodily function; and $2,500 for past pain and suffering. In this law action, the trial court's findings of fact are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. Poole, 666 N.W.2d at 565. Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would view the record as sufficient to support the conclusion. Vogan v. Hayes Appraisal Assocs., Inc., 588 N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1999). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, see Poole, 666 N.W.2d at 565, we conclude that the award was supported by substantial evidence.
The trial court concluded that Dr. Lichtenberg's opinion was entitled to little weight because it was well after the accident and after Ms. Olsen-Wolf's difficult pregnancy. The trial court found many of Ms. Olsen-Wolf's complaints were attributable to her difficult pregnancy. The trial court noted Ms. Olsen-Wolf was often bed-ridden and gained a great deal of weight. The trial court placed greater weight on the opinion Dr. Petkovich, who concluded in August 2000 that Ms. Olsen-Wolf had "completely recovered" but would have continual residual pain for a short time. The trial court observed this was consistent with Ms. Olsen-Wolf's treatment history with Dr. Blumenfeld. The trial court noted that Ms. Olsen-Wolf did not pursue recommended treatment. Most significantly, the trial court concluded: "Accident-related discomfort and impairment after she quit her documented chiropractic treatments [in October 2000] remain unproven in this record." This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Given these conclusions and the balance of the record, we conclude that the trial court's award for past pain and suffering and past loss of bodily function is supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, we conclude the trial court's refusal to award damages for future pain and suffering is not an error of law.
III. Conclusion
The trial court's damage award is supported by substantial evidence. Its judgment is affirmed.