 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Continental Insurance Co.3/12/2002
UNPUBLISHED
In this no-fault automobile insurance case, plaintiff appeals as of right the adequacy of a judgment verdict in his favor and an order denying his posttrial motion for costs, attorney fees, and interest. We affirm.
This case arises out of a February 19, 1997, automobile accident. Five physicians testified at trial that at the time they examined and treated plaintiff he was unable to return to his job as a truck hauler due to his injuries because the job entailed loading and unloading new cars and driving long distances. However, one of plaintiff's treating physicians, Dr. Daniel Ryan, referred him to an aggressive work conditioning program.
After plaintiff successfully completed the program, Dr. Ryan opined that plaintiff was able to return to his regular job of securing motor vehicles to ramps and transporting the vehicles. Based on this opinion, defendant insurer terminated plaintiff's benefits effective July 23, 1998. Defendant's claim specialist testified that defendant had paid plaintiff a total of $52,538 covering wage loss and medical benefits but admitted liability to twenty-three days worth of wage loss benefits between June 30, 1998, and July 23, 1998.
The three issues at trial related to plaintiff's capability to return to work, his entitlement to replacement services, and whether plaintiff submitted certain medical bills to defendant.
I.
Plaintiff contends that the jury's award of $3,000 in his favor for wage loss was inadequate and contrary to the great weight of the evidence. He argues that he is entitled to an award of at least $44,312.50 for wage loss benefits because the proof presented at trial showed that plaintiff was unable to return to his pre-accident job as a truck hauler. MCL 500.3107(1)(b) provides that a no-fault insurer must pay benefits for " ork loss consisting of loss of income from work an injured person would have performed during the first three years after the date of the accident if he had not been injured." We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial because there was conflicting credible evidence regarding whether plaintiff's injury affected his return to his former job .
In deciding a motion for a new trial, the trial court's function is to determine whether the overwhelming weight of the evidence favors the losing party. Phinney v Perlmutter, 222 Mich App 513, 525; 564 NW2d 532 (1997).
This Court determines whether the trial court abused its discretion in making that determination. Bordeaux v Celotex Corp, 203 Mich App 158, 170; 511 NW2d 899 (1993). A verdict may be overturned on appeal only if it was manifestly against the great weight of the evidence. Watkins v Manchester, 220 Mich App 337, 340; 559 NW2d 81 (1996). This Court gives substantial deference to a trial court's conclusion that the verdict is not against the great weight of the evidence. Id.
The record does not support plaintiff's argument that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. At trial, the parties presented conflicting evidence regarding whether plaintiff was able to return to his former job after he underwent work conditioning training. Plaintiff's own testimony was contradictory and vague.
While several physicians opined that plaintiff was unable to return to work, the two physicians who continued to treat plaintiff following the termination of his wage loss benefits were not asked and therefore expressed no opinion regarding Dr. Ryan's assessment that the work conditioning program which plaintiff completed had enabled him to return to his work. Dr. Joseph Verdun's testimony was th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|