Downs v. Ackerman
115 So. 3d 785
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Honda Downs was rear-ended by Dr. Ackerman; liability was admitted and the trial was on damages only.
- Downs sought past/future medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering; medical bills totaled about $20,800 and she claimed ~$10,500 past lost wages.
- Medical testimony: Dr. McCloskey and Dr. Millette testified the accident caused cervical disc injury, carpal tunnel, and central disequilibrium syndrome; treating records and some diagnostic tests (e.g., electrical studies) were equivocal or negative for carpal tunnel; other treating physicians found Downs could return to work.
- Jury asked during deliberations about defendant’s insurance and payments; court instructed jury to disregard those questions and continue deliberations.
- Jury awarded $20,000 to Downs; trial court denied additur/new trial. Court of Appeals reversed, ordering additur or new trial; Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and reinstated the trial-court judgment, holding denial of additur/new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $20,000 verdict was inadequate and against overwhelming weight of evidence to warrant an additur or new trial | Downs argued medical bills and expert testimony established damages/proximate causation; $20,000 was less than medical bills and thus inadequate | Ackerman argued evidentiary gaps and impeachment undermined causation and necessity of some treatment; jury could reject plaintiff’s experts | Court held appellate court erred; trial court did not abuse discretion — verdict was within jury’s province and not so unreasonable as to require additur/new trial |
| Whether medical bills produced a prima facie showing tying them to the accident | Downs argued bills and testimony were prima facie evidence they were reasonable/caused by accident | Ackerman argued bills do not automatically prove causation; cross-examination raised reasonable doubt about causation and necessity | Court held bills create prima facie reasonableness but not automatic proof of causation; causation remained for jury to weigh |
| Whether jury was biased/confused by admission of GENEX/workers’ comp records and jurors’ questions about insurance | Downs argued GENEX documents and jurors’ questions show confusion/bias leading to inadequate verdict | Ackerman argued jurors’ questions related to common knowledge about liability insurance and court had properly instructed jury to disregard; GENEX letters did not create bias | Court held trial court reasonably found no bias or passion; jurors’ questions did not reference GENEX and instruction sufficed |
| Standard of review for additur/new trial | Downs implicitly urged reversal/de novo consideration of adequacy of damages | Ackerman urged deferential abuse-of-discretion review to uphold trial court denial | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and gave deference to jury and trial court, affirming trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Nguyen, 86 So.3d 232 (Miss. 2012) (standard for jury weighing expert testimony and appellate review of additur)
- Maddox v. Muirhead, 738 So.2d 742 (Miss. 1999) (additur is extraordinary and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Rodgers v. Pascagoula Pub. Sch. Dist., 611 So.2d 942 (Miss. 1992) (deference to jury verdict and standard for setting aside awards)
- Estate of Bolden v. Williams, 17 So.3d 1069 (Miss. 2009) (medical bills and testimony create prima facie evidence of reasonableness)
- Jackson v. Brumfield, 458 So.2d 736 (Miss. 1984) (opposing party may rebut necessity and reasonableness of medical bills)
- Herring v. Poirrier, 797 So.2d 797 (Miss. 2000) (medical expenses reasonable/necessary do not automatically prove causation)
- Gibbs v. Banks, 527 So.2d 658 (Miss. 1988) (cautionary guidance on judicial intrusion into jury’s role via additur)