 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Ross v. Tjaden9/10/2003
porting that both the cause and extent of Ross's injuries was disputed. For example, prior to the accident Ross had already suffered from arthritis to the knee. Dr. Fabiano, Ross's orthopedic surgeon, testified in his deposition that Ross's knee already had significant, chronic degeneration of the knee prior to the accident and that the accident aggravated that arthritis in the knee. He testified that it was possible Ross's arthritis would eventually become symptomatic and that he may need knee replacement at some point regardless of injuries sustained in the accident. Likewise, Dr. Hart, another orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed Ross with osteoarthritis of the left knee.
Despite these alleged disputes in the evidence, we do not find such to be a mandate that we affirm the denial of the new trial. Conversely, nor has our supreme court "adopted an inflexible rule that every verdict awarding only damages for medical expenses in a personal injury action is inadequate as a matter of law." Id. at 159. Thus we are not bound by any hard and fast rule but rather look to the particulars of this case. Cowan does not require that each motion for a new trial fall neatly into one of its observed categories.
We instead address whether the jury's refusal to allow any recovery for future pain and suffering is supported by the evidence, given its award for future medical expenses. We note Dr. Fabiano testified that Ross experienced swelling and severe pain in the knee, but would just "rough it out" until he could have the knee replacement surgery. This testimony supports a conclusion that Ross would experience pain and suffering into the future. We conclude it is illogical and unsupported by the evidence to award past and future medical expenses required to relieve damage to a knee and then allow nothing for the concurrent pain and suffering. Considering it is readily apparent from the jury's verdict it allowed damages for Ross's prospective knee replacement, we find no reasonable basis for the jury to disallow recovery for his future pain and suffering for the same injury . See Neumann v. Serv. Parts Headquarters, 572 N.W.2d 175, 177 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (finding the jury's total failure to award pain and suffering damages illogical based on its award of medical expenses).
Moreover, we find unsupported by the evidence the jury's decision to award nothing for past or future loss of body. Because the jury awarded damages for the future medical expenses of a knee replacement surgery, it is illogical to have awarded no loss of body. Dr. Fabiano testified that the knee had degenerated, as a result of the accident, to the point where knee replacement surgery would be necessary. If there were no loss of body, as the jury's award concludes, there logically would have been no need for a knee replacement.
Because of these irreconcilable jury awards which clearly were inadequate, see Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1004(4), and not sustained by sufficient evidence, see Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1004(6), we conclude the trial court erred in refusing to grant the motion for new trial. We therefore remand for a new trial on the issue of damages only. See Brant v. Bockholt, 532 N.W.2d 801, 805 (Iowa 1995) (ordering retrial on totality of damages issue, rather than on a single element of damages).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|