History
  • No items yet
midpage
Sokol v. Rosciszewski CA4/1
D067282
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Kazimierz Sokol fell down outdoor apartment stairs in April 2011; landlord Anna Rosciszewski stipulated negligence but causation was submitted to the jury.
  • Sokol sought recovery for medical bills (U.S. and Poland), past and future lost earnings, and past and future noneconomic (pain, suffering, psychological) damages.
  • Medical evidence: orthopedic surgeon (Dr. Kelly) testified to a cartilage condyle defect attributable to the fall and recommended activity restrictions; defense expert (Dr. Vance) attributed most findings to preexisting degenerative change and disputed disabling impairment or need for ongoing treatment.
  • Psychological evidence: plaintiff’s psychologist (Dr. Schanowitz) diagnosed PTSD and billed for about two years of treatment; defense psychiatrist (Dr. Carroll) disputed PTSD and expected shorter treatment.
  • Economic evidence conflicted: plaintiff’s vocational expert said plaintiff could not return to mechanic work and calculated significant past and future wage losses; defense vocational expert and lack of job-seeking records supported no award for future earnings.
  • Jury awarded $36,474.89 for past medical expenses and $5,000 for past pain and suffering; awarded nothing for past lost earnings or any future damages. Trial court denied new-trial/additur; appeal challenges damages adequacy and alleged judicial misconduct.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Adequacy of past medical expense award Award ($36,474.89) is less than billed $78,871 and thus legally inadequate Defense billing expert showed large write-downs and lack of proof for Polish bills; some charges were med/legal Affirmed — substantial evidence supported jury’s determination of reasonable medical expense amount
Future economic damages (lost earning capacity) Experts agreed plaintiff cannot resume mechanic work; plaintiff argues future losses were proven Defense showed preexisting gaps in employment, lack of documentation, transferrable skills, and plaintiff did not seek work/training; future losses speculative Affirmed — substantial evidence supported denial of future economic damages
Noneconomic damages (past and future pain/suffering, psychological) PTSD and permanent impairment warrant greater past award and some future noneconomic damages Defense disputed PTSD diagnosis and severity; objective evidence limited and contradicted plaintiff’s symptoms Affirmed — $5,000 past noneconomic award and no future noneconomic damages not legally inadequate given conflicting evidence and credibility determinations
Judicial misconduct / trial-court bias Trial judge’s comments and demeanor cued jury and prejudiced plaintiff Remarks were isolated, mostly outside jury presence or promptly corrected; record shows no prejudicial bias Affirmed — no prejudicial judicial misconduct shown; court’s rulings stand

Key Cases Cited

  • Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 56 Cal.2d 498 (1961) (jury decides damages; trial court sits as 13th juror on new-trial motion)
  • Miller v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 212 Cal.App.2d 555 (1963) (appellate deference to jury and trial court on damages)
  • Gersick v. Shilling, 97 Cal.App.2d 641 (1950) (trier of fact may reject witness testimony and assess damages)
  • Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541 (2011) (medical expenses recoverable only if incurred and reasonable)
  • Bermudez v. Ciolek, 237 Cal.App.4th 1311 (2015) (unpaid medical bills alone may be insufficient to prove reasonable value)
  • Dodson v. J. Pacific, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 931 (2007) (where serious surgery attributable to negligence is proved, awarding nothing for pain and suffering may be inadequate)
  • Rayii v. Gatica, 218 Cal.App.4th 1402 (2013) (appellant must cite record evidence supporting reversal; appellate deference to credibility findings)
  • Gallentine v. Richardson, 248 Cal.App.2d 152 (1967) (inconsistency between proven severe injury and zero pain-and-suffering award can require reversal)
  • Haskins v. Holmes, 252 Cal.App.2d 580 (1967) (nominal award inconsistent with proof of substantial injury and surgery)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Sokol v. Rosciszewski CA4/1
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Oct 5, 2016
Docket Number: D067282
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.