 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kadmiri v. Claassen8/15/2000
g a new trial when the jury does not award these amounts.' Krivanek, 72 Wn. App. at 636.
In Palmer, a new trial was granted on appeal because the jury award equaled only the plaintiff's special damages. Palmer, 132 Wn.2d at 201. The court held that in the absence of a 'legitimate controversy regarding special damages,' it was clear that the verdict included no compensation for pain and suffering. Id. In that case, the uncontroverted evidence at trial established that all the medical treatment was related to the accident and, therefore, was necessary and reasonable. Id. at 199. The court noted that 'the defense presented no evidence to call the treatment into question.' Id.
By contrast, in this case Ms. Claassen presented evidence that Mr. Kadmiri's treatment was not necessary or reasonable. This evidence was presented through the testimony of Dr. Linder, Dr. Jessen and Dr. Sears. Dr. Linder and Dr. Jessen both testified that Mr. Kadmiri's abnormalities were the result of aging, not the collision. Both doctors also stated that further treatment was not necessary. Dr. Sears testified that Mr. Kadmiri was exaggerating his symptoms, and his condition was likely fixed and stable prior to April 1994. Significantly, he asserted that it is possible that Mr. Kadmiri had no injuries whatsoever, and his symptoms were the result of exaggeration.
The verdict is not contrary to this evidence. While Mr. Kadmiri's treatment occurred prior to the first examination by any of these physicians, they all testified that any injury he presented he suffered from prior to the accident. Additionally, Dr. Sears stated that Mr. Kadmiri may in fact have nothing wrong with him. Given this testimony, the jury was free to conclude that some of Mr. Kadmiri's medical expenses were unnecessary because they were not attributable to the collision or because he was exaggerating his injuries.
In denying the motion for a new trial, the court pointed out that the jury likely had concerns about Mr. Kadmiri's credibility. Because Mr. Kadmiri's injuries and treatment were contested, the evidence supported the jury's award. As a result, the court's denial of a new trial was not in error.
Affirmed.
The majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
Sweeney, J.
Kato, J.
|