 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kyute v. Auslund9/16/2003
This case rises out of a motor-vehicle accident. Following a jury trial on the issue of damages resulting from the accident, respondent was awarded $913.43 for unreimbursed past medical expenses, $6,000 for future medical expenses, and $6,000 for loss of future earning capacity. Judgment for these amounts was entered against appellant. Appellant challenges the judgment, arguing that (1) respondent's unreimbursed past medical expenses should be paid by respondent's first-party insurer, and (2) future medical expenses and loss of future earning capacity are non-economic damages subject to the tort-threshold requirements of Minn. Stat. §á65B.51, subd. 3 (2002). Because we conclude that appellant is liable for respondent's unreimbursed past medical expenses and that future medical expenses and loss of future earning capacity are economic damages, not subject to the tort-threshold requirements of Minn. Stat. §á65B.51, subd. 3, we affirm.
FACTS
On October 9, 1998, respondent Jana Kyute sustained injuries in a motor-vehicle accident when her vehicle was struck by appellant Evelyn Ausland's vehicle. Appellant admitted liability for the accident. A jury trial on the issue of damages was held, and the jury returned a special verdict on August 2, 2002. The jury found that respondent did not satisfy any of the tort-threshold requirements of Minn. Stat. §á65B.51, subd. 3 (2002), and awarded respondent, relevant to this appeal, $913.43 for unreimbursed past medical expenses, $6,000 for future medical expenses, and $6,000 for loss of future earning capacity.
The district court concluded that respondent was entitled to the awards for unreimbursed past medical expenses, future medical expenses, and loss of future earning capacity, and judgment was entered accordingly.
This appeal follows.
ISSUES
I. Is respondent entitled to recovery for unreimbursed past medical expenses?
II. Is respondent entitled to recovery for future medical expenses and loss of future earning capacity?
ANALYSIS
I.
Appellant contends that because the $913.43 balance for past medical expenses is payable by respondent's first-party insurance provider, appellant should not be liable for this amount. This court will substitute its judgment for that of the jury only when there is no evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. Baker v. Amtrak Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 588 N.W.2d 749, 753 (Minn. App. 1999).
Under Minn. Stat. § 65B.51, subd. 2 (2002), uncompensated economic losses may be recovered in a negligence action involving an automobile that is insured as required by the no-fault act, without regard to tort thresholds. Nemanic v. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 667, 669 (Minn. 1983). Expenses for medical, x-ray, and rehabilitative services are economic losses under Minn. Stat. §á65B.51, subd. 2. See Minn. Stat. §§á65B.44, subd. 2 (medical, x-ray and rehabilitative services shall be reimbursed by medical expense benefits),.51, subd. 2 (economic loss includes uncovered costs as outlined in Minn. Stat. §á65B.44) (2002).
Here, the jury found that respondent had incurred $5,383.80 in diagnostic x-ray, rehabilitation, and non-diagnostic and non-rehabilitative health-care expenses. The district court found that respondent had been reimbursed $4,470.37 of these costs, resulting in a balance of $913.43. Respondent testified that she had been "cut off" from receipt of no-fault benefits prior to trial, which resulted in the unreimbursed amount and the record contains no evidence to the contrary. The jury's award is supported by the evidence presented at trial and the dist
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|