Gregory D. Allen v. Debbie D. Albea
2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 241
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In Jan. 2012 Allen's car was rear-ended by Albea; Allen sued for personal injuries and itemized ~$28k in medical bills in his complaint. Liability for the collision was admitted by Albea.
- Allen sought jury trial; pretrial disputes included photo evidence of minimal vehicle damage and requests to deem admissions re: medical bills as admitted.
- At trial the court allowed photographs and permitted introduction of treating providers’ depositions; Albea stipulated the bills were genuine but denied they were causally connected to the accident.
- A jury awarded Allen $11,513.78. Allen moved for a new trial asserting juror misconduct (juror inspected Allen’s repaired car and commented during deliberations) and raised several evidentiary errors.
- Trial court denied the new-trial motion and other relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (inter alia) the juror’s comment was not extraneous prejudicial information, photos were admissible, allowance to amend admissions was within discretion, treating-physician testimony relying on other doctors’ records was permissible, and the verdict was supported by material evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Allen's Argument | Albea's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct / new trial | Juror Pinson inspected Allen’s repaired car and told jurors that repairs showed Allen wasn’t seriously injured; this was extraneous prejudicial information requiring a new trial | Juror’s comment repeated facts already in evidence (photos, testimony that Allen repaired his car); no prejudicial extraneous information | No new trial; comment not "extraneous" because same facts were in evidence and no reasonable probability verdict was altered |
| Admissibility of vehicle photographs | Photos should be excluded because minimal damage is not substantive proof of lack of injury absent biomechanical expert; unfairly prejudicial | Photos are relevant circumstantial evidence about impact and injury severity; weight for jury | Admission affirmed; photos relevant and weight for jury to decide |
| Requests for admissions (medical bills) | Trial court should have deemed Albea’s admissions about reasonableness/causation to be admitted | Albea responded she could not admit causation/reasonableness without expert opinion and sought leave to amend responses | Trial court did not abuse discretion in allowing amendment and excluding the responses as admissions; plaintiff not prejudiced |
| Testimony re: Dr. Akin (out-of-court physician) | Cross-exam about Dr. Akin’s records introduced impermissible hearsay/substantive opinion through Dr. Stewart (a "mouthpiece") | Treating physician may rely on and testify about other doctors’ reports used in diagnosis/treatment under Rule 703/Evans | Affirmed; treating physician properly relied on and testified about specialists’ reports used in treatment |
| Adequacy of verdict | Verdict is inadequate given uncontroverted medical bills (~$27,812) and prima facie proof of reasonableness | Jury found credibility issues, pre-existing conditions, and causation problems; award supported by evidence | Verdict supported by material evidence; appellate court will not reweigh credibility; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Ali v. Fisher, 145 S.W.3d 557 (Tenn. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial review)
- Walsh v. State, 166 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2005) (juror testimony admissible only to prove extraneous prejudicial information; deliberative mental processes inadmissible)
- Caldararo v. Vanderbilt Univ., 794 S.W.2d 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (definition/examples of extraneous information vs. internal juror influences)
- Evans v. Wilson, 776 S.W.2d 939 (Tenn. 1989) (treating physician may base opinion on hearsay reports and tests received in diagnosis/treatment)
- Holder v. Westgate Resorts, Ltd., 356 S.W.3d 373 (Tenn. 2011) (treats limits on expert reliance on inadmissible data; distinguishable here)
- Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375 (Tenn. 2014) (appellate review will not set aside jury fact findings where material evidence supports verdict)
- Patton v. Rose, 892 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (verdict must be grounded on evidence; verdict based on non-evidence is improper)