Weaver v. Siegling
This text of 569 So. 2d 97 (Weaver v. Siegling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Maria WEAVER, et al.
v.
Fred D. SIEGLING and Winn Dixie of Louisiana, Inc.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
*98 Laurence Cohen, New Orleans, for plaintiffs/appellees.
Paul M. Lavelle, Montgomery, Barnett, Brown, Read, Hammond & Mintz, New Orleans, for defendants/appellants.
Before WARD, ARMSTRONG and BECKER, JJ.
BECKER, Judge.
This appeal arises from litigation concerning a vehicular collision which occurred on April 30, 1986. A Winn Dixie tractor-trailer, driven by Fred Siegling, ran a red light and struck plaintiff's vehicle broadside, injuring plaintiff, Maria Weaver, plaintiff's daughter, Archelle Johnson, and Gregory Holmes.[1] Winn Dixie stipulated to liability prior to trial. The only issue to be determined at trial were the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs.
After a trial on the merits, the jury awarded Maria Weaver general damages of $150,000.00 and medical expenses of $11,000.00. The parties had stipulated that Ms. Weaver's lost wages were $3,143.00. The jury awarded Archelle Johnson $65,000.00 in general damages and $4,000.00 in medical expenses.
Defendants now appeal, seeking a reduction in the damage awards. They specifically allege that
(1) the trial judge erred in denying their motion for a new trial;
(2) the damage award in favor of Maria Weaver is excessive and not supported by the evidence;
(3) the damages awarded to Archelle Johnson are excessive and not supported by the evidence; and
(4) the trial court erroneously allowed speculative testimony concerning surgery thereby tainting the jury's damage award.
In support of plaintiff's claim for damages, evidence was presented that Maria Weaver was struck in the head by the Winn Dixie tractor trailer and rendered unconscious. Mrs. Weaver was taken to Charity Hospital via ambulance and treated for a concussion and lacerations to her scalp and left elbow. Archelle Johnson was also taken to Charity Hospital, where she was treated for multiple lacerations of the face, mouth and arms and a hematoma to the hip.
Maria Weaver and her daughter, Archelle Johnson, were initially treated by Dr. Julius Isaacson. Dr. Isaacson testified that when he first saw Ms. Weaver she complained of headaches and pain in the neck, left shoulder and left arm. His diagnosis was that Mrs. Weaver suffered from a cerebral concussion, multiple lacerations and cervical sprain. Dr. Isaacson referred Ms. Weaver to Dr. Aaron Friedman, a neurologist, when her complaints did not subside.
Ms. Weaver saw Dr. Friedman on June 19, 1986 complaining of headaches, dizziness, tingling in fingertips of the left hand, numbness of the left arm, occasional blurred vision, and insomnia. Dr. Friedman testified that the plaintiff had suffered a concussion in the accident, and was suffering from post-concussive syndrome, and cervical spasm. A catscan performed on the plaintiff showed no abnormalities. Ms. Weaver was released to the care of Dr. Bernard Manale on January 14, 1988.
During this same period of time, Ms. Weaver was also being treated by Dr. Philip Jones, a general practitioner. Dr. Jones testified that plaintiff had sustained head trauma with lacerations and concussive syndrome, multiple contusions, and cervical and lumbar strain. He prescribed physical therapy to relieve the cervical and lumbar strain which plaintiff underwent for approximately four months.
Dr. Bernard Manale, an orthopedic surgeon, began treating Ms. Weaver on July 30, 1986. Upon examination, Dr. Manale found that plaintiff had cervical and lumbar sprain. X-rays taken at that time did not show any fractures or dislocations. An EMG and nerve conduction study on April 1987 suggested some evidence of cervical nerve root irritation. However, a catscan also performed at that time was normal.
*99 In January 1988, plaintiff underwent a MRI which suggested possible mild posterior bulges at C3-4, and C4-5. However, these findings were not conclusive. Dr. Manale testified that a discogram was necessary to confirm these findings. Dr. Manale further testified that if the discogram did show bulging discs, then surgery would possibly be required. He also suggested that the plaintiff should get a second opinion before deciding on the need for surgery. Ms. Weaver testified that, at the time of trial, she had not yet obtained a second opinion nor undergone the discogram. Plaintiff was still under the care of Dr. Manale at the time of trial. Dr. Manale indicated that, at the time of the trial, plaintiff had a ten to fifteen percent physical impairment.
Ms. Weaver was also treated by Dr. Chester Scrignar, a psychiatrist. Dr. Scrignar testified that the plaintiff was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder with secondary depression. He opined that Ms. Weaver should have weekly therapy visits for one year and then semi-annually or annually for the rest of her life.
Dr. Scrignar also examined Archelle Johnson, and found Archelle to be suffering from an adjustment reaction to the accident. He also testified that Archelle was self-conscious about the scars on her forehead and lip.
Dr. Delgado, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, testified that surgical revision on the scars would reduce the prominence and disfiguring nature of the scars. The total cost for such surgical treatment would be approximately $2,800.00.
The scar on Archelle's forehead extended vertically near the edge of the right eyebrow to just past the center of the forehead, and was approximately one-fourth of an inch in width. The scar on her lip crossed the fat part of the lip and was three-eighths of an inch in length and one-sixteenth of an inch in width.
Dr. Gernon Brown, an orthopedic surgeon, examined Ms. Weaver on behalf of the defendants. He testified that he found no objective signs of disc disease. Dr. Brown did acknowledge the presence of mild bulging at the C3-4 and C4-5 levels on plaintiff's MRI scan. However, he believed that this bulging was not trauma-induced but simply variations of the norm for a twenty-nine year old woman. He stated that Ms. Weaver did not need any further treatment or surgery. Defendants also had Dr. Richard Roniger, a psychiatrist, examine plaintiff on May 1, 1989. Dr. Roniger testified that he found no psychiatric illness and believed plaintiff may have exagerated or fabricated her symptoms.
Defendants argue that, in light of this evidence, the judgment rendered is not supported by the evidence, and therefore, the trial judge erred in denying their motion for a new trial. L.S.A.-C.C.P. article 1972 provides in pertinent part that "a new trial shall be granted, ..., when the verdict or judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence." Absent an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's denial of a new trial.
A review of the trial record clearly indicates that the jury's awards for pain and suffering are clearly contrary to the law and evidence. The awards for pain and suffering for both Maria Weaver and Archelle Johnson are clearly excessive. However, the amounts awarded for medical expenses, past, present and future, are supported by the evidence. Therefore, we must find that the trial court erred in failing to grant defendants a new trial on the general damages. A remand, however, is not necessary. There is sufficient evidence in the record for this court to determine the appropriate general damages.
The standard of appellate review of general damages was enumerated in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
569 So. 2d 97, 1990 WL 151412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-siegling-lactapp-1990.