In yet another commercial trucking case, the San Antonio Court of Appeals has rejected the plaintiff’s appeal of a jury verdict that awarded past medical expenses but zero damages for past physical pain, mental anguish, or any other element of damages.
Richard Parker v. RAD Trucking, Ltd. (No. 04-22-00656-CV; February 14, 2024) arose from a collision between Plaintiff’s pickup truck and a tractor-trailer driven by Defendant’s employee. Plaintiff suffered neck and back injuries in the accident and sued Defendant and the employee driver. Defendant stipulated that its employee driver was acting in the course and scope of employment. and that his negligence was the sole cause of the accident. The only issues left for the jury were proximate cause and damages. The parties joined issue at trial over whether Plaintiff’s past physical pain and mental anguish damages stemmed from the accident or from a pre-existing condition. The jury awarded Plaintiff about $150,000 in damages for past medical expenses but returned a zero verdict for past and future physical pain, mental anguish, past or future physical impairment, and future medical expenses. Plaintiff appealed. Defendant cross-appealed, challenging the evidence supporting the jury’s award of past medical damages.
In an opinion by Justice Alvarez, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Plaintiff narrowed his appeal to the jury’s failure to award of past physical pain and mental anguish damages. He argued that the jury verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence because the jury could not award damages for past medical expenses without impliedly determining that Plaintiff was likewise entitled to the other damages as well. Defendant countered that Plaintiff’s evidence on each element of damages was controverted and that the jury had the right to weigh the evidence and reach its own conclusions.
Here the court determined that the parties offered conflicting evidence that Defendant’s negligence caused Plaintiff’s soft damages and could have concluded that Plaintiff’s physical pain and mental anguish damages stemmed from a pre-existing condition, namely arthritis that had for many years been treated by various painkillers. Although Plaintiff claimed he had been off painkillers for a period before the accident, the evidence showed the contrary, weakening his claim that the accident caused him to resume taking pills. Further, the court reasoned, the jury has discretion to award past medical expenses without awarding other damages, if it “could have concluded that ‘any pain or impairment resulting from the accident was too minimal to warrant a monetary award, but that [the plaintiff] should be fairly compensated for seeking medical care and missing some work’” (citations omitted). In the event, the post-accident report and photos of the crash site showed relatively minor damage to both vehicles consistent with a low-speed, low-impact accident, as opposed to the “direct T-bone” described by Plaintiff. The jury could thus have viewed this evidence as undermining Plaintiff’s damages claims. There was also evidence from Plaintiff’s own expert that Plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative spine condition, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to report his pre-existing condition to a second physician who recommended back surgery. Based on this review of the evidence, the court concluded that the evidence was “in the zone of disagreement” and that reasonable people could differ in their conclusions. The verdict was, consequently, not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Defendant wisely cut its losses by conditioning its cross-appeal on remand for new trial, so the court did not reach the evidentiary argument as to past medicals.
The court’s discussion of the record in this case is very illuminating with respect to how industrialized commercial trucking litigation on the plaintiff’s side has actually become. Here the plaintiff sought treatment from three orthopedic surgeons, one of whom sent him to a chiropractor and recommended pain management, the second of whom started the plaintiff on epidural injections and subsequently performed a discographic study, based on which he recommended surgery, and the third of whom performed laser surgery that didn’t do anything to resolve the alleged back pain. Where did the plaintiff get the names of all these doctors? How were the costs handled? Might there have been letters of protection involved? Was it really necessary to see three practitioners or did the plaintiff keep going to a new doctor until he got the diagnosis and surgical recommendation he was looking for? It’s not at all clear from the record what the plaintiff actually got for $150,000 in consultations, injections, adjustments, and, ultimately, surgery. The jury (and the court of appeals) clearly saw through all this and, we suspect, who was really running the operation. It sent a message by refusing to award soft damages, thus depriving plaintiff’s counsel of the lion’s share of their attorney’s fees.
