BLEDSAW V. DENNIS
TORTS: DAMAGES (zero pain and suffering verdict; Miller v. Swift)
2005-CA-000903
PUBLISHED
AFFIRMING; VANMETER
DATE RENDERED: 7/7/2006
The COA affirmed denial of new trial under Miller v. Swift regarding jury’s award of medical expenses but nothing for pain and suffering. No injuries were revealed by the x-rays which were taken during plaintiff’s second emergency room visit several days later. Plaintiff further testified that she did not remember who referred her to the chiropractor whom she saw only after obtaining the assistance of counsel.
Finally, the evidence showed the Plaintiff was able to resume her normal school and work activities after a severalweek holiday break.
As stated, “[a] jury is not bound to believe a plaintiff or her doctors.” Given COA’s review of the record, it could not say that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence, or that the trial court clearly erred by failing to grant a new trial. The judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.
NOTE: This decision continues the analysis that Miller v. Swift and the zero pain and suffering verdicts are really decisions of causation. Also, the instructions and analysis seem to continue in the vein of "pain and suffering" rather than the actual components in the MVRA of "pain, suffering, anguish and inconvenience".
