Joseph Spaulding v. Joseph Cook (mem. dec.), 89 N.E.3d 413

On June 8, 2012 Spaulding was t‑boned at an intersection; Cook stipulated he was 100% at fault before trial. Damage to vehicles and immediate apparent injury were minor; Spaulding did not seek care the day of the crash.
Spaulding sought ER care the next day for left shoulder tenderness; was treated by family physician (cortisone, meds, PT) and later by orthopedic surgeon after MRI showed rotator cuff tear, possible biceps tendon tear, and moderate AC joint arthrosis; surgical repair followed.
Spaulding had at least one subsequent motor‑vehicle incident (July 27) and prior shoulder history on the right; he did not disclose the July 27 incident to the orthopedic surgeon at the August visit.
At trial the parties limited litigation to damages only (Cook conceded fault). Plaintiff introduced treating physicians’ testimony that the June 8 accident caused the left shoulder pathology; Cook emphasized preexisting degenerative AC arthrosis, the minor impact, timing gaps in treatment, and nondisclosure of the July 27 event.
The jury awarded Spaulding zero damages. The trial court denied his motion to correct error; on appeal the court reviewed denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence / causation — whether zero verdict is contrary to evidence	Spaulding: treating doctors causally linked his left shoulder injuries and medical expenses to the June 8 collision; no contrary medical expert was offered, so jury had to award damages.	Cook: evidence (preexisting AC arthrosis and ganglion cyst, minor impact, delay in care, nondisclosed July 27 collision, uncertainty in dating tear) permitted the jury to disbelieve causation.	Court: Affirmed — jury reasonably could reject plaintiff’s medical causation given preexisting degenerative findings, credibility/timing issues, and uncertainty; verdict within bounds of evidence.
Standard of review — whether trial court abused discretion denying T.R. 59 motion	Spaulding: verdict clearly erroneous as a matter of law.	Cook: jury verdict entitled to deference; trial court properly exercised discretion.	Court: No abuse of discretion; appellate deference to jury and trial court applied.

Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2001) (jury damage determinations entitled to great deference)
Flores v. Gutierrez, 951 N.E.2d 632 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (jury may credit evidence undermining plaintiff’s medical causation where preexisting conditions and credibility issues exist)
Walker v. Cuppett, 808 N.E.2d 85 (Ind. 2004) (expert testimony may be rejected by jury and can be challenged by non‑expert evidence)
Willis v. Westerfield, 839 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. 2006) (no expert testimony required where causation is within common experience)
Russell v. Neumann‑Steadman, 759 N.E.2d 234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (plaintiff must prove medical expenses proximately caused by defendant’s negligence)
Conklin v. Demastus, 574 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (verdict for defendant affirmed despite concession of negligence where medical history, credibility, and minor crash undermined causation)