Grant, Mahalia v. Jose Marcisco Cruz, and DFW A-1 Pallet, Inc.
406 S.W.3d 358
Tex. App.2013Background
- On April 9, 2007, an 18-wheeler driven by Jose Marcisco Cruz rolled backward and struck the front of Mahalia Grant’s car; property damage was minimal, airbags did not deploy, and seatbelts did not lock.
- Grant sought emergency care the day of the accident and repeatedly thereafter, alleging neck/back pain, headaches, intermittent vision loss/“black outs,” weakness, urinary incontinence, and later paralysis; multiple CTs and MRIs were largely unremarkable except a May 2, 2007 MRI showing mild periligamentous edema at C0–C4.
- Treating physicians repeatedly found no clear organic cause for many of Grant’s symptoms, noted inconsistencies in her reports, and raised the possibility of a psychological cause or malingering; one expert (Feagins) opined the urinary incontinence was due to detrusor sphincter dyssynergia but did not tie it to the accident.
- A jury found defendants negligent and awarded Grant $10,000 for past medical expenses and $700 for past lost earning capacity, but awarded zero damages for past and future pain/mental anguish, future impairment, future medical expenses, and future lost earning capacity.
- Grant appealed, arguing the evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury’s zero award for past pain and mental anguish (asserting the May 2 MRI provided objective proof of injury causally linked to the accident).
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict; the court of appeals affirmed, concluding the jury reasonably could disbelieve Grant’s subjective pain claims despite awarding past medicals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual sufficiency of evidence supporting jury’s zero award for past pain and mental anguish | Grant: May 2, 2007 MRI showed objective swelling from base of skull through C4 caused by the collision; objective injury plus awarded past medicals compels some award for pain | Defendants: Evidence showed minimal vehicle damage, inconsistent and subjective symptom reports, largely normal imaging/tests otherwise, and physicians questioned psychological/malingering causes; jury was entitled to disbelieve Grant’s pain testimony | Affirmed: Court held the zero award was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence; jury reasonably could reject subjective pain claims despite awarding past medical expenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard for reviewing factual-sufficiency challenges to adverse findings)
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (reviewing courts consider all evidence relevant to sufficiency)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (deference to jury on credibility and weight of evidence)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (limits on appellate reweighing of evidence and credibility assessments)
- Blizzard v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 756 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, no writ) (undisputed objective injury more likely to overturn zero-damage findings)
- Enright v. Goodman Distribution, Inc., 330 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (medical-expense award does not automatically require an award for pain; jury may credit medical care but reject compensable pain)