Steven Kempson v. Pamela Casey, E2015-02184-COA-R3-CV

On Oct. 14, 2011 Steven Kempson’s pickup was rear-ended on I-24 by a van driven by Pamela Casey (owned by Bradley Smith); both defendants admitted the collision.
Kempson claimed the collision aggravated longstanding cervical/thoracic/lumbar spine conditions and ultimately required a three‑level cervical discectomy and fusion; his wife asserted loss of consortium.
Defense disputed causation, emphasized minimal vehicle damage, Ms. Casey’s account of a low‑speed impact, and evidence of Kempson’s similar pre‑existing complaints dating back years.
Treating surgeon Dr. Hodges and chiropractor Dr. Gruber testified Kempson had preexisting degenerative spine disease but Dr. Hodges opined the 2011 collision materially worsened the condition necessitating surgery.
The jury found defendants caused no damage and awarded no damages; the trial court denied a new trial. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeals vacated the no‑damages judgment and remanded for a new trial on damages only, concluding there was no material evidence supporting an award of zero damages given unrefuted expert testimony about aggravation and reasonable medical evaluation expenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was no material evidence to support the jury’s no‑damage verdict	Jury should have found the accident aggravated Kempson’s preexisting condition based on Dr. Hodges’ uncontradicted opinion and should at minimum award medical evaluation expenses	Cross‑examination showed longstanding identical complaints, minor impact, minimal damage, and reason to disbelieve causation; thus material evidence supports no damages verdict	Court held there was no material evidence to support the zero‑damages verdict and vacated it; remanded for a new trial on damages only
Whether the trial court abused discretion as thirteenth juror by denying a new trial	Trial court should have set aside verdict because unrefuted expert testimony mandated damages for aggravation and for medical evaluation expenses	Trial court properly weighed conflicting evidence and credibility; denial of new trial was within discretion	Court concluded trial court’s decision could not stand given legal principles requiring compensation for aggravation and unrefuted reasonable expenses; remand for damages only

Watson v. Payne, 359 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (elements of negligence; damages are for the factfinder)
Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Whittemore, 442 S.W.2d 266 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969) (unimpeached, uncontradicted physician testimony should not be ignored)
Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665 (Tenn. 2006) (standard for appellate review of jury findings)
Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2000) (material evidence standard and how to view record on appeal)
Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (appellate deference to jury and trial court acting as thirteenth juror)
Newsom v. Markus, 588 S.W.2d 883 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979) (reasonable evaluation/treatment expenses may be recoverable even if injury is not ultimately found)