 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gensler v. Paulson1/25/2005
ary.
Paulson also provided expert medical evidence on future medical expenses. Paulson's expert, Dr. Paul Cederberg, disagreed with Gibbs and Dorn. Cederberg testified that he examined Gensler twice after the June 1997 accident and found no "objective evidence" of Gensler having "a permanent injury ." Cederberg also stated that he did not "see any objective reason for more treatment."
Through stipulation, the jury received an exhibit summarizing Gensler's medical expenses between June 1997 and January 2003. This exhibit showed medical expenses totaling $8,054, including payments to chiropractors, rehabilitation clinics, and medical clinics. The jury was instructed that Gensler's life expectancy was an additional forty-eight years.
The jury returned a verdict finding that Gensler had sustained a permanent injury as the result of the June 1997 accident and awarding $65,000 in damages for future medical expenses. Paulson moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new trial, contending, in part, that the evidence did not establish the damages for future medical treatment. The district court denied Paulson's posttrial motions, concluding that the evidence adequately sustained the award. Paulson appeals from the order denying the posttrial motions.
DECISION
The district court's denial of a motion for JNOV must be affirmed if, in the record, "there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict." Rettman v. City of Litchfield, 354 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn. 1984). "Unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, [this court] will not set the verdict aside." Id. (quotation omitted). We will similarly affirm the denial of a motion for a new trial unless the verdict is "manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict." ZumBerge v. N. States Power Co., 481 N.W.2d 103, 110 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1992).
To recover future medical expenses, a plaintiff must (1) demonstrate that future medical treatments will be required, and (2) establish the amount of the damages. Lind v. Slowinski, 450 N.W.2d 353, 358 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Feb. 21, 1990). Both requirements must be substantiated through competent evidence, which is ordinarily expert testimony. Pietrzak v. Eggen, 295 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Minn. 1980); Lamont v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 395, 278 Minn. 291, 295, 154 N.W.2d 188, 192 (1967).
Paulson argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish the first Lind requirement because the expert testimony was not presented in "very strong and affirmative terms" and did not "specif the exact nature of the treatment which would be needed." Our review of the record shows that the expert testimony of Doctors Gibbs and Dorn sufficiently established the need for future medical treatment.
Gibbs and Dorn consistently testified that Gensler's injury was "permanent." Gibbs specified that Gensler will experience "permanent" pain of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine and will "have limited range of motion." Gibbs explained that, to minimize the pain, Gensler should continue exercise, chiropractic manipulation, over-the-counter medication and, if necessary, seek stronger, prescription medication from a medical doctor. Gibbs also noted a concurring opinion of an orthopedist who recommended further physical therapy and chiropractic care. Dorn reviewed medical records pertaining to Gensler's postaccident treatment and noted that Gensler received chiropractic treatment. Dorn testified that he believed those treatments were reasonable and necessary.
On this expert testim
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|