Hubbard v. Truong

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hubbard v. Truong

502 S.W.3d 89, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2016 WL 6440400

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103890

StatusPublished

This text of 502 S.W.3d 89 (Hubbard v. Truong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hubbard v. Truong, 502 S.W.3d 89, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2016 WL 6440400 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James R. Hubbard (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the jury’s verdict in his action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident against Thuthuy Truong (“Defendant”). Plaintiff raises three points on appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in: 1) allowing Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff with Plaintiffs VA medical records because they were not produced to Plaintiff prior to trial; 2) allowing Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff with Plaintiffs VA medical records because there was no evidentiary foundation for their admission; and 3) denying Plaintiffs motion for additur, or alternatively, motion for new trial because a verdict of $0 is manifestly unjust and grossly inadequate. Finding no error of law, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James R. Hubbard (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the jury’s verdict in his action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident against Thuthuy Truong (“Defendant”). Plaintiff raises three points on appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in: 1) allowing Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff with Plaintiffs VA medical records because they were not produced to Plaintiff prior to trial; 2) allowing Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff with Plaintiffs VA medical records because there was no evidentiary foundation for their admission; and 3) denying Plaintiffs motion for additur, or alternatively, motion for new trial because a verdict of $0 is manifestly unjust and grossly inadequate. Finding no error of law, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 S.W.3d 89, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2016 WL 6440400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbard-v-truong-moctapp-2016.