 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Galvez v. Thomas F. McCafferty Health Center5/30/2002
offer to his clients; that the economic damages claim was abandoned without a reduction in the demand and that the two mock juries returned verdicts for the appellee for less than $2,000,000.
. In the case sub judice, the trial court weighed the evidence submitted by the parties, including the testimony of the witnesses. Mr. Berris testified that there was no "line in the sand," that he was ready to negotiate with anyone at all times, that the abandonment of the economic damages did not significantly impact the value of this case, and that the verdicts of the mock juries supported his belief in the value of this case.
Berris specifically testified that he would anticipate a larger verdict from a real jury in a courtroom than from a mock jury. Trial court was entitled to believe Mr. Berris and therefore had competent, credible evidence upon which to base its determination. This court finds no abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding that the appellee did not fail to make a good faith effort to settle this case.
. In the second assignment of error the appellant argues that it had a good faith belief that the actions taken by the physician were defensible and thus were not required to make any offer of settlement. The appellant points to the testimony of Ms. Lagerski and Ms. Henry estimating the settlement range of this case to be between $750,000 and $1,500,000.
The appellant contends that this range was similar to the verdicts returned by the mock juries. The appellant also notes that the amount of the final jury verdict is irrelevant when considering the issue of prejudgment interest.
. Once more, this court must note that the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the evidence both at the underlying trial and at the motion hearing. Mr. Berris testified at the motion hearing that the appellant's actions were medically indefensible and that he believed a jury in a courtroom would return a larger verdict than a mock jury. The court also received evidence that Mr. Beech of the Mutual Assurance Company learned from counsel for MetroHealth that the settlement range of the case, not the verdict range in the case, was between $750,000 and $1,500,000.
Despite the testimony from Lagerski and Henry, the trial court was entitled to disbelieve their testimony. The trial court had credible and competent evidence before it upon which to base its conclusion that the appellant failed to rationally evaluate this case and that it failed to make a good faith effort to settle.
. The appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., CONCUR.
JAMES D. SWEENEY JUDGE
|