 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Koresh v. Peters9/27/2000
blush, the jury verdict appears to be inadequate to do justice in this case. However, with closer examination of the conflicting testimony, the verdict can be reconciled with the facts presented to the jury. Dr. Klinkel provided chiropractic services to Koresh and testified she had some level of permanent impairment and loss of bodily function attributable to the collision. He also stated that she would require monthly chiropractic treatments for the rest of her life. This was offset by testimony of Koresh's physician, Dr. Ryal, who did not find any permanent impairment or loss of function resulting from her injuries. He further testified that following his examination of Koresh, he expected her to be fully recovered by late March of 1997 or approximately two months following the accident. In his report dated March 7, 1997, Dr. Ryal stated:
As far as pain goes, she's really not feeling much pain at this point, it's more stiffness and a little bit of soreness. . . There's pain with anterior flexion of the low back. She has full range of motion of the neck with minimal discomfort. Only complaints of soreness and stiffness in the low back and neck.
Koresh returned to her full-time job duties with no restrictions for lifting or physical activities after a two-month absence. Koresh testified she is now unable to perform some of the physical activities she enjoyed prior to the accident, including dancing, snowmobiling, housework, or helping her father in his business. This was countered by her testimony that she successfully performs a physically demanding job, working substantial overtime with the absence of any lifting or other restrictions. In addition, she now enjoys activities such as weight training using low weights with high repetitions and walking several miles each day. A witness testified that she had seen Koresh at a nightclub dancing within one month following the accident and several more times in the months immediately following the accident. The jury was free to accept or reject any of this evidence in judging the credibility of witnesses and arriving at the verdict. Field v. Palmer, 592 N.W.2d 347, 353 (Iowa 1999).
The amount of damages awarded is peculiarly a jury, not a court function. The jury's verdict should not be set aside or altered unless the plaintiff proves the verdict: (1) is flagrantly excessive or inadequate; or (2) is so out of reason as to shock the conscience or sense of justice; or (3) raises a presumption it is the result of passion, prejudice or other ulterior motive; or (4) is lacking in evidential support. Gorden v. Carey, 603 N.W.2d 588, 590 (Iowa 1999) (citations omitted).
The $700 medical expense award can be reconciled with the evidence . The jury was free to accept or reject the testimony of the various witnesses and award medical expenses accordingly, based on the disputed need for the expenses incurred. In addition, the testimony regarding past pain and suffering was contradicted and the jury was therefore free to award an amount commensurate with the evidence it accepted as most credible.
We find the jury verdict can be reconciled to the evidence presented. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
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.
|
|