 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Loncar v. Gray8/17/2001
No. 5451
I. INTRODUCTION
Kala Loncar contends that evidentiary decisions in her personal injury trial were prejudicial to her case and resulted in an inadequate jury award. She argues that the superior court erred by admitting evidence of her prior medical history, by precluding evidence of her government medical benefits, by restricting cross-examination of her ex-husband, and by admitting post-accident medical records without foundational testimony from a physician. She also maintains that the superior court erred in denying her motion for a new trial. Because we conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in reaching any of these decisions, we affirm its rulings.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Kala Loncar was a taxi driver in Anchorage until her injury in a 1995 traffic accident. Although Loncar did not initially appear to be seriously injured in the accident and did not report any loss of consciousness at the time, she soon began to suffer from symptoms apparently related to a closed head injury. Loncar complained of headaches, dizziness, vomiting, nausea, and mental disorientation.
Loncar brought a personal injury negligence action against the other driver, Kenneth Gray. Gray admitted liability, but disputed the amount of damages attributable to the accident. He argued that Loncar had exaggerated her symptoms and had misled her own doctors by falsely claiming to have suffered a loss of consciousness at the time of the accident. He also argued that Loncar's symptoms predated the accident, and called Loncar's ex-husband as a witness to testify that this was the case.
During the trial, Superior Court Judge Sen K. Tan made several evidentiary rulings that Loncar now contests. The court broadly excluded medical records and evidence regarding Loncar's prior medical history, but allowed her estranged ex-husband to testify about her medical history. The trial court also excluded evidence of Loncar's Medicaid and Medicare coverage and testimony on the details of her divorce settlement. In addition, it admitted some medical records without requiring physician testimony to establish a foundation for their admissibility.
The jury awarded Loncar damages for past medical expenses, wage loss, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. But it did not award any damages for future expenses, losses, or suffering, or for her children's loss of parental consortium; and the jury's award of $21,435.26 for past medical expenses was only half of the $42,870.52 in medical bills which Loncar entered into evidence. The total award was $29,435.26. Loncar moved for a new trial, but the superior court denied her motion. Loncar now appeals.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the trial court's conclusions of law de novo and review its decisions to admit or exclude evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. To prevail on her appeal of the trial court's evidentiary decisions, Loncar must show that those decisions were erroneous and had a substantial influence on the outcome of the case. Under Alaska Civil Rule 61, errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence are grounds for reversal only if failure to reverse "appears to [this] court inconsistent with substantial justice."
In reviewing the denial of a motion for a new trial, we have said:
The decision to grant or deny a new trial is within the trial court's discretion. If there is an evidentiary basis for the jury's decision, the denial of a new trial must be affirmed. However, if the evidence supporting the verdict was completely lacking or so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unrea
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|