269 So. 3d 1173
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- July 9, 2014: McCloskey, Squyres and Roberts injured in a rear-end collision; liability conceded by summary judgment; causation and damages tried.
- Five-day bench trial concluded December 2017; post-trial motion by nonparty DMA to quash subpoena (seeking to block evidence of payments between DMA and its contracted physicians) was granted by the trial court on January 31, 2018, under the collateral-source rule.
- Trial court entered judgment (Aug. 2, 2018) awarding substantial past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and general damages to each plaintiff (awards reduced by a prior Gasquet settlement).
- Excess insurer Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London appealed, challenging (1) the denial of access to DMA evidence and (2) award of future pain-management expenses for McCloskey.
- Plaintiffs answered the appeal, challenging certain reductions and calculations (lost wages, prescription cost basis, and Roberts’ general damages).
- Appellate court dismissed the appeal as to the January 31, 2018 DMA quash judgment as untimely; on the merits it affirmed the trial court on all preserved issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in quashing DMA subpoena (collateral source evidence) | Plaintiffs (and DMA) argued collateral-source rule bars disclosure of DMA/physician payment arrangements | Lloyd’s argued DMA evidence was relevant to challenge billed amounts and should be admissible | Appeal of the quash order was untimely; court dismissed that branch of appeal and did not overturn quash on merits |
| Recoverability of DMA-billed amounts as past medical expenses | Plaintiffs argued billed amounts (including DMA-funded procedures) are proven and caused by accident, thus recoverable | Lloyd’s contended billed DMA amounts were not recoverable without DMA payment evidence | Court affirmed: trial court had reasonable factual basis and awards for past medical expenses were proper |
| Award of future pain-management expenses for McCloskey after discharge for positive drug test | McCloskey (via treating physician) argued lifelong periodic pain management is medically necessary regardless of one clinic discharge | Lloyd’s argued discharge for cocaine use negated entitlement to future pain-management costs | Court found trial court reasonably credited treating physician; discharge irrelevant to future need; award affirmed |
| Inclusion of cash payments in lost-wage calculations | Plaintiffs argued cash portions of pay should be included in base earnings | Lloyd’s argued cash payments were unverified and not shown as taxable income on payroll/tax records | Trial court declined to include unverified cash; appellate court found factual basis for that decision and affirmed |
| Award of lost wages to Squyres | Squyres argued he proved lost earnings via testimony and past income records | Lloyd’s argued gaps/inconsistencies did not establish continuity of earnings or future loss | Court held plaintiff failed to prove he would have been earning post-accident; no lost-wage award warranted |
| Future prescription cost basis (generic vs brand) | Plaintiffs argued future award should reflect name-brand costs | Lloyd’s argued generic costs appropriate absent physician requirement for brand | Court held trial court reasonably used generic pricing (physicians did not require brand); award stands |
| Adequacy of Roberts’ general damages ($500,000) | Roberts argued award too low given injuries and inflation; sought larger award | Lloyd’s defended the quantum as within trial court discretion | Court declined to disturb award; no abuse of discretion shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaiser v. Hardin, 953 So.2d 802 (La. 2007) (manifest-error standard for special damages including medical expenses)
- Stobart v. State Through Dept't of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (appellate review limited to whether factfinder’s conclusion was reasonable)
- Ploger v. Reese, 819 So.2d 1114 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (standard for proving lost earnings)
- Guillory v. Lee, 16 So.3d 1104 (La. 2009) (trial court is afforded great discretion in assessing quantum of damages)
- Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La. 1979) (appellate court must first find trial court abused wide discretion before altering general damages)