 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parizon v. Children's Hospital Of Michigan12/15/2000
UNPUBLISHED
After a jury awarded plaintiff $15,000 in this medical malpractice action, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for additur and entered a judgment awarding plaintiff $505,992, plus interest, taxable costs and fees. Defendant now appeals. We reverse.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that, during a hospital stay in August 1980, Melissa Parizon, then an infant, was injured when an IV inserted into her ankle infiltrated into the subcutaneous tissues around the vein. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to recognize that the IV had infiltrated, in monitoring the infant's condition, and in failing to immediately and properly treat the injury. As a result of defendant's alleged negligence, Melissa Parizon suffered permanent scarring and disability. Following a trial, a jury found that defendant was negligent, that Melissa had suffered damages as a proximate result of defendant's negligence, and that the amount of the damages from the date of the injury to the filing of the complaint was $15,000. The jury did not award any interest on the award for past damages, or award any future damages.
Plaintiff moved for additur or in the alternative a new trial. The court found that the jury's verdict was "totally inadequate" and, therefore, granted the motion for additur in plaintiff's suggested amount of $505,992, plus interest, taxable costs and fees, and entered judgment for plaintiff in that amount. Defendant rejected the amount of additur and filed various motions for clarification and/or rehearing of the trial court's order, arguing that the court should have granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial unless defendant consented to the entry of judgment in an amount determined by the court to be the lowest amount supported by the evidence. The trial court denied defendant's motions.
I.
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the jury's verdict was inadequate and that the lowest amount the evidence would support was an amount more than thirty-three times the amount of the jury's verdict. This Court reviews a decision to grant additur for an abuse of discretion. Arnold v Darczy, 208 Mich App 638, 639; 528 NW2d 199 (1995).
MCR 2.611(E)(1) provides:
If the court finds that the only error in the trial is the inadequacy or excessiveness of the verdict, it may deny a motion for a new trial on condition that within 14 days the nonmoving party consent in writing to the entry of judgment in an amount found by the court to be the lowest (if the verdict was inadequate) or highest (if the verdict was excessive) amount the evidence will support.
The proper consideration when reviewing a trial court's grant of additur is whether the jury award was supported by the evidence. Arnold, supra at 640. Awards for personal injury damages, particularly pain and suffering, rest within the sound discretion of the trier of fact. Meek v Department of Transportation, 240 Mich App 105, 122; 610 NW2d 250 (2000). An appellate court reviewing a personal injury award should decide each case on its own facts, although awards in analogous cases may be one factor considered. Id., citing Precopio v Detroit, 415 Mich 457, 471-472; 330 NW2d 802 (1982). Other factors that may be considered include "whether the verdict was the result of improper methods, prejudice, passion, partiality, sympathy, corruption, or mistake of law or fact" and "whether the verdict was within the limits of what reasonable minds would deem just compensation for the injury sustained." Palenkas v Beaumont Hospital, 432 Mich 527, 532; 443 NW2d 354 (1989).
In this case, the jury's $15,000 award for past d
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|