88 So. 3d 698
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Duncan was rear-ended on April 10, 2008; lawsuit against Colon, Bartholomew, and Sang; Sang and Duncan settled and Sang dismissed; Colón’s insurer State Farm remained a party; pre-trial witness disclosure deadline missed by Duncan, omitting Dr. Patrick Waring; trial allowed deposition of Sang as unavailable; Waring’s records and testimony were excluded on interlocutory review; judgment signed November 2, 2010 with devolutive appeal granted; Court later affirmed the district court verdict and rulings.
- Duncan sought to call an unlisted treating physician and introduce his records but the trial court limited this testimony; the trial court admitted Sang’s deposition and allowed medical bills to be introduced on redirect; the jury awarded Duncan $5,000 for mental anguish and $55,000 in general damages plus specific past and future damages; State Farm and Bartholomew GEICO challenged the rulings on directed verdicts, redirect evidence, and damages.
- The appellate court applied law-of-the-case to prior rulings on Waring and rejected palpable error; reviewed directed verdicts de novo and found no reversible error; reviewed redirect-evidence ruling for abuse of discretion and found no abuse; reviewed mental anguish and special damages for abuse or manifest error and affirmed.
- The court found no reversible error overall and affirmed the district court judgment; Duncan’s devolutive appeal was timely; Sang’s deposition and medical bills during redirect were properly admitted; damages for mental anguish and for lost wages/future medical expenses were reasonable.
- The appellate court also reviewed and concluded there was no abuse of discretion in admitting Sang’s deposition or in the treatment of medical bills; it found the restriction on Dr. Waring’s testimony to be an abuse of discretion but did not affect the general damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Dr. Waring’s testimony and records | Duncan argues exclusion was error | Law-of-the-case controls; no abuse | No reversible error; law-of-the-case controls; affirmed |
| Admission of Kim Sang’s deposition | Sang unavailable; deposition should be allowed | Trial court acted within discretion | Deposition properly admitted; no abuse |
| Directed verdicts post-evidence | Verdicts should be directed in plaintiff’s favor | Motions abandoned; evidence after denial evaluated | Motions abandoned; no reversible error |
| Redirect medical bills evidence | Bills should not be admitted on redirect | Proper cross-examination raised issues; recross allowed | Within court’s discretion; no abuse |
| Damages: mental anguish and special damages | Mental anguish and past/future damages too low | Discretionary jury awards supported by record | General damages not excessive; special damages supported; not clearly wrong |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for appellate review of awards and credibility)
- Wilson v. Magee, 367 So.2d 314 (La. 1979) (abuse of discretion in mental anguish damages when accompanying physical injury)
- First Bank and Trust v. Duwell, 70 So.3d 15 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (law-of-the-case and palpable error considerations in appellate review)
- St. John Baptist Church of Phoenix v. Thomas, 1 So.3d 618 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (discretion in discovery rulings and witness exclusion)
- Harwell v. Haspel-Kansas Investments Partnership, 598 So.2d 1284 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard in discovery rulings)