 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCall v. Nicholas1/30/2002
mmick).) In Dimmick, the court affirmed a jury's award of damages less than the medical expenses submitted by the plaintiff because the jury did not believe all the medical expenses were attributable to the accident. (Ibid.) In Miller, we affirmed an award that equaled the medical expenses, leaving nothing for pain and suffering, because there was sufficient evidence that not all the medical expenses were attributable to the defendant's negligence. (Miller, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 558.) In contrast, a verdict for less than amount of medical expenses is inadequate when the evidence show the injury was caused solely by the defendant's negligence. (Thompson v. Mattucci (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 208, 210-211.) Therefore, we must affirm a damage award for less than the plaintiff's medical expenses when substantial evidence supports a finding that not all the medical expenses are attributable to the defendant's conduct.
Here, there was testimony from which the jury could have concluded that the medical expenses associated with McCall's disk injury were not attributable to the dog incident. The jury could have concluded the disk problems resulted from McCall's earlier back injury. Dr. Van Dam testified patients can have symptoms that initially suggest a strained back but that may be the result of a disk injury. Further, as discussed above, McCall failed to tell Van Dam and Clarke that her earlier back injury continued to cause pain when she lifted heavy objects. Further, the jury could have determined the disk problem developed some time after the dog incident. McCall worked full time during most of 1997 and 1998 and did not appear to be in pain. Both doctors testified that disc problems can develop without a traumatic injury. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that McCall's disk problems were not attributable to the dog incident.
There was also sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that McCall did not suffer a loss of income as a result of the incident. The incident occurred in May 1997. McCall's income increased from $128,000 in 1996 to $183,144 in 1997 to $223,464 in 1998. This increase in income does not suggest McCall lost income as a result of the 1997 incident.
In 1999, two years after the incident, McCall's income declined to $100,700. There was evidence that the real estate market had softened in 1999. Additionally, there was little land available for development in the Rancho Santa Fe area, which reduced the opportunities for land sales, a significant part of McCall's business. Further, as discussed above, substantial evidence supports an inference that the 1997 incident did not cause the back problems McCall suffered in 1999. Therefore, substantial evidence supports a jury verdict granting no lost income to McCall.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Appellant to pay costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|