Sharon Huston v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
434 S.W.3d 630
Tex. App.2014Background
- Huston sued UPS for negligence after a rear-end collision; trial court granted liability summary judgment in Huston’s favor and the case proceeded to damages trial.
- Huston alleged severe injuries and ongoing pain with multiple surgeries; she testified to scars and long-term impairment.
- Haskin, UPS driver, claimed low-speed impact; Huston’s accident-reconstruction expert estimated higher speed.
- UPS hired Dr. Grieder who opined no identifiable injury from the collision and questioned treatment necessity.
- Evidence at trial included a pre-trial cross-examination ruling regarding Dr. Perez; Huston’s cross-examination was limited.
- A/R Net purchased Huston’s medical-receivable accounts at a discount; Huston remained liable to A/R Net for full amounts billed; the jury awarded damages including past medical expenses but zero for several future categories; the trial court then set a $64,000 Rule 167 set-off against Huston’s damages.
- The court’s final judgment reduced Huston’s recovery to $33,000 after set-off; Huston appealed on preservation, medical-expense evidence, and damages sufficiency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-examination limitation of Dr. Perez | Huston contends ruling restricted cross-examination | Ups argues no preservation, ruling not fully shown | Huston failed to preserve; issue overruled |
| Evidence of past medical expenses under §41.0105 | Should recover full billed amounts; A/R Net discount irrelevant | Limit to amounts actually paid or incurred | Harmless error; no reversal; issue overruled |
| Damages sufficiency for disfigurement, future earning capacity, future impairment, future medicals | Jury erred in awarding zero for these items | Credible evidence supports no future damages | Not against weight/preponderance; issues overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (great weight standard for damages and credibility)
- Arias v. Brookstone, L.P., 265 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. App.—Houston 2007) (standard for reviewing conflicts in evidence)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (sufficiency review framework for damages)
- Tagle v. Galvan, 155 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (evidence and factors for lost earning capacity)
- Lanier v. E. Founds., Inc., 401 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (jury discretion in damages)
- Reynolds, 127 S.W.3d 21 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003) (lost earning capacity evidence standards)
- Big Bird Tree Servs. v. Gallegos, 365 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (factors for lost future earnings and damages)
- Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011) (41.0105 limits recoverable medical expenses; collateral-source discussion)