Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-1419 SECTION "C" (2)
April 7, 2003
Before the Court is Plaintiff's, Fabian Shawl's Motion for Amendment of Judgment pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the jury's award for general damages in the amount of $12,000 was "unreasonable, illogical" and "inconsistent with the Jury's findings of fact and constitutes an insufficient award under Louisiana law addressing similar injuries." (Pl's. Mot. at 2). Plaintiff submits that a "Louisiana Appellate Courts have consistently held in cases regarding similar injuries, that damages for past and future pain and suffering are worth at a minimum $125,000, and that a lesser award is manifest error on the part of the finder of fact." (Id. at 9)
Plaintiff originally tendered this motion for filing on March 20, 2003, however, the filing was returned to Plaintiff as defective for failure to include either an order or notice of hearing. On that same date, the Court received a facsimile transmission of the motion. Defendants filed an Opposition on March 21, 2003. On March 28, 2003, Plaintiff moved to amend judgment to include interest from date of judicial demand and costs. On March 31, 2003, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion and entered an Amended Judgment. Thus, the ten day period for filing a motion to amend or alter judgment under Rule 59(e) began to run again with the Court's decision on March 31, 2003. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 946 F. Supp. 454, 458-59 (E.D.La. 1996). On April 2, 2003, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Amended Judgment into the record. Although not specifically tailored as a Motion to Amend the Amended Judgment, the Court will treat Plaintiff's April 2nd filing as such given the circumstances in this case.
The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's assessment of Louisiana law. In consideration of a post-verdict motion to disturb a jury verdict, the Court "should consider all of the evidence . . . in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion." Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 274 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc)
If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied.
Id. The Court agrees with Defendants' argument that in this case, there was "substantial evidence . . . of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions."
First, as Defendants point out, at trial Dr. James Butler did dispute the fact that the herniation was the source of Plaintiff's pain. Further and more significantly, although Plaintiff testified to his limited activities due to his injury, he was less than forthcoming as to what activities he participated in prior to the accident that he could no longer enjoy. Additionally, the jury watched an approximately hour long video of Plaintiff repeatedly stooping and bending and getting in and out of a truck that he was washing without any evidence of hesitation or restriction. This video was taken within three months after the accident at issue. Finally, jurors watched a subsequent video taken in October 2002, again, with Plaintiff performing physical activities without any hesitation or restriction.
The Louisiana Supreme Court has rejected the proposition that an award of medical or special damages without any award of general damage is error per se. Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So.2d 70, 76 (La. 2000)
A jury, in the exercise of its discretion as factfinder, can reasonably reach the conclusion that a plaintiff has proven his entitlement to recovery of certain medical costs, yet failed to prove that he endured compensable pain and suffering as a result of defendant's fault . . . [I]t would be inconsistent with the great deference afforded the factfinder by this court and our jurisprudence to state that, as a matter of law, such a verdict must always be erroneous.
Id.; accord Sallinger v. Robichaux, 775 So.2d 437 (La. 2001) ("This de novo review by the Court of Appeal was improper. Our recent decision in Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So.2d 70, 2000 La. LEXIS 2727 (La. 2000), makes it clear that it is not necessarily legal error for a jury to award medical expenses without awarding general damages for pain and suffering.").
Under Louisiana law, the manifest error standard is the appropriate standard for review of damage awards. See Sallinger, citing, Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La. 1976) ("before a Court of Appeal can disturb an award made by a trial court that the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion in making its award."). This manifest error rule applicable at the appellate level is equally pertinent for a district court's review of a jury award. A reviewing court should not disturb the factfinder's conclusions unless "a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court" and "the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous)." Stobart v. State, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993)
Plaintiff's reliance on Buras v. United Gas Pipeline Co, 598 So.2d 397 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1992) and other case law decided prior to Wainwright in support the proposition that the jury award was unreasonable low or that "$100,000 [or $125,000 adjusted for inflation] is the minimum award for a herniated disc which requires a surgery," ( see Pl's. Mot. at 7-8) is in error. In Wainwright, the Louisiana Supreme Court expressly rejected this "matter of law" type of absolute assignment of error. See id., 774 So.2d at 76.
Buras, and other case law relied on by Plaintiff to support a minimum award of $125,000 is factually distinguishable from the case at bar.Specifically, the plaintiffs in Buras, Redondo and Jackson had undergone surgical laminectomies prior to trial to remove a portions of a ruptured discs, received surgical lumbar fusions and/or suffered other serious objective injuries. See Buras, 598 So.2d at 402 (injury to back resulting in surgical laminectomy, as well as two fractured ribs, damage to kidney and contusions on leg); Redondo, 529 So.2d at 1298 (laminectomy performed); and Jackson, 712 So.2d at 523 (anterior cervical fusion and hospitalization). Further, in all three cases the plaintiffs introduced credible evidence of disability affecting employment and evidence of lost wages. In the case at bar, Plaintiff has not undergone surgery for his injury and evidence was presented at trial calling into question the efficacy of a surgical procedure in Plaintiff's particular situation. Finally, Plaintiff introduced no evidence of lost wages and other evidence introduced by the defense, specifically the extensive videos of Plaintiff engaged in physical activity discounted any claim of permanent disability or impairment.
Specifically Redoncio v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 529 So.2d 1296 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 533 So.2d 363 (La. 1988) and Jackson v. CSX Transp., 712 So.2d 514 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997) (a post- Wainwright decision).
Upon review of the motions, memorandum, the applicable law, the record as a whole and taking into account judicial notice of the trial and the testimony of the witnesses before the jury, the Court finds that substantial evidence exists to support the jury's award of $12,000 for general damages in this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Amendment of Judgment is DENIED.