Fulton v. Untd Airlines, 19-20140

Background

Fulton, a wheelchair user with a degenerative spinal condition, was assisted by contracted Air Serv attendants while boarding a connecting United flight and was dropped, striking the plane wall and shoulder.
She experienced immediate severe shoulder pain, lost strength and mobility in her right arm, and her specialized wheelchair was damaged.
An MRI after her return revealed severe rotator-cuff and biceps tears; surgeons recommended and later performed surgery after months of delay, during which she suffered significant pain and loss of independence.
Fulton sued United, Air Serv, and the employee; United removed the case to federal court.
A jury awarded Fulton approximately $3.8 million for medical expenses, physical impairment, disfigurement, pain and mental anguish; the district court denied United’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, or remittitur.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the evidence supported causation and the damage awards were not grossly excessive under Texas law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for medical causation (Rule 50(b))	Fulton urged lay testimony, medical records, and testimony of her treating surgeon established that being dropped caused her full-thickness rotator cuff tear and torn bicep.	United argued expert testimony was required under Texas law for medical causation because of Fulton’s preexisting spinal condition and that treating physician testimony was not proper expert opinion.	The court held the evidence (plaintiff testimony, caregiver, treating surgeon, MRI/records) was sufficient; lay inference was reasonable for a traumatic tear and the treating surgeon’s testimony was properly admitted.
Excessiveness of award for past and future physical pain and mental anguish	Fulton presented contemporaneous pain complaints, high pain ratings, and surgeon testimony that pain would persist and require future treatment.	United argued the pain-and-anguish awards were grossly excessive and unsupported by the evidence.	The court held the awards were supported by the record and not against the great weight of the evidence; denial of new trial/remittitur affirmed.
Past disfigurement damages	Fulton relied on evidence of postoperative scarring, bruising, and swelling and the nature of surgical incisions supporting a reasonable inference of disfigurement.	United contended disfigurement evidence was insufficient.	The court held sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to infer scarring/disfigurement; award was within jury discretion.
Preservation of challenges to healthcare expenses/overall damages	Fulton asserted the record supported these awards and District Court rulings were final.	United failed to raise these arguments properly in the district court and thus forfeited them on appeal.	The court held United forfeited appellate review of those challenges for failure to raise them in the district court.

Key Cases Cited

Apache Deepwater, L.L.C. v. W&T Offshore, Inc., 930 F.3d 647 (5th Cir.) (deferential standard for reviewing denial of Rule 50(b) motion)
Janvey v. Romero, 817 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2016) (courts credit non-moving party’s evidence when reviewing JMOL denial)
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard for abuse of discretion on new-trial review)
Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. 2007) (expert testimony required for causation when condition is beyond common knowledge)
Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1984) (lay testimony may suffice when common sense enables causation inference)
Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (federal courts apply state-law standards when reviewing state-law damage awards)
Longoria v. Hunter Express, Ltd., 932 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard for remittitur and whether evidence supports jury’s verdict)
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (assessment of disfigurement damages is within factfinder’s discretion)