Ermst And Christine Meinhart, V Monica Anaya, 49667-4

In October 2013 Monica Anaya rear-ended Ernst and Christine Meinhart; Anaya admitted liability and the Meinharts sued for economic and noneconomic damages.
Both plaintiffs began chiropractic treatment the week after the accident and received approximately seven months of care from Dr. Don Finlayson; medical bills (~$4,700 each) and extensive treatment records were admitted.
Dr. Finlayson testified both had moderate-to-severe neck, back, and headache symptoms that gradually improved but (Ernst) retained some intermittent pain; Christine was discharged at maximum medical improvement with no residual symptoms.
Anaya’s expert, Dr. Mark Sutton, agreed both were injured and received reasonable treatment for about five months but opined treatment should have ended earlier and disputed the duration/severity.
At trial the jury awarded essentially all claimed medical expenses (economic damages) but awarded $0 for past and future noneconomic damages (pain and suffering).
The Meinharts moved for a new trial under CR 59(a)(7); the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding no evidence or reasonable inference supporting the jury’s award of zero noneconomic damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury’s zero award for noneconomic damages was contrary to the evidence under CR 59(a)(7)	Jury lacked basis to award $0 because plaintiffs presented substantial, consistent testimony and medical records showing ongoing pain and treatment	Defense argued only the amount and duration of pain were disputed; defendant’s expert acknowledged plaintiffs were injured and experienced pain for months	Reversed: new trial required because no evidence or reasonable inference supported a $0 award for noneconomic damages

Palmer v. Jensen, 132 Wn.2d 193 (1997) (medical evidence substantiating ongoing pain can render a jury’s $0 noneconomic award contrary to the evidence)
Fahndrich v. Williams, 147 Wn. App. 302 (2008) (when plaintiff presents extensive pain evidence and defendant presents no contrary evidence, a $0 noneconomic award is unsupported)
Lopez v. Salgado-Guadarama, 130 Wn. App. 87 (2005) (defendant’s credible evidence that pain was minimal or transient can justify a $0 noneconomic award)
Gestson v. Scott, 116 Wn. App. 616 (2003) (evidence of minor impact, preexisting conditions, or lack of symptoms can support a jury’s failure to award pain damages)