March 15, 2011
Today, the Indiana Supreme Court reinforced that a trial court must strictly comply with
Trial Rule 59(J) if its corrects an error under that Rule in
Walker v. Pullen, Case No. 64S05-1101-CT-0006. If a trial court grants a Rule 59 motion without making sufficiently specific findings, then the remedy on appeal is to reinstate the jury verdict.
less..
This case involved a motor vehicle collision. There was some dispute with regard to how much of the plaintiff's treatment was caused by the accident. The total medical bills were $12,500, with a portion of those attributable to an MRI. After a trial, the jury entered a verdict for $10,070. After the dollar amount, the jury wrote "for P.T. & inital [sic] medical assessment." According to the Supreme Court's calculations, the actual amount attributable to the plaintiff's physical therapy and initial medical assessment was $10,064. The plaintiff moved to correct error, saying that the award was less than his total medical bills. The trial court granted that motion. The full text of the court’s ruling was as follows:
1. The undisputed medical testimony in this case established that Plaintiff's medical bills from Porter Memorial Hospital, Dr. Lakhani, and Radiologic Associates of Northwest Indiana were for appropriate treatment of injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the negligence of Defendant.
2. Those medical bills totaled $12,520.00. The jury's verdict was less than those medical bills.
3. There was also undisputed medical testimony that Plaintiff endured pain and suffering for a minimum of five months. The jury's verdict obviously contained no award for that, however minimal.
The Court of Appeals
affirmed in an unpublished opinion and the Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Court emphasized that trial courts must strictly comply with Rule 59(J) when granting a new trial because the verdict does not accord with the evidence. It then found that the trial court's findings in this case were not sufficiently specific.
In this case, the trial court granted a new trial because it believed the verdict did not accord with the evidence. It did not state whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous. The court made only general findings and not the special findings required by Rule 59(J).
This case provides a prime example of why special findings are required when the judge acts as the thirteenth juror. Pullen claimed a total of $25,019.50 in damages for medical bills - $12,520 for treatment in 2004 and $12,499.50 for treatment in 2007 and 2008. The jury apparently did not agree that Walker's negligence required all of those treatments and awarded Pullen $10,070 "for P.T. & inital [sic] medical assessment." By our count, Pullen's expenses for physical therapy, appointments with his regular physician, and the initial x-rays following his first appointment were $10,064. After hearing all the testimony, the jury may apparently have believed these damages were the result of Walker's negligence, and believed Walker's medical expert that the remainder of the expenses were either unnecessary or unrelated.
The court's statement that the evidence was "undisputed" is not a sufficient special finding to justify supplanting the jury's verdict. The trial court's findings do not suggest that this was an unjust result.
The Court clearly stated that it wanted this case to serve as an example of the types of findings that are insufficient under Rule 59(J). Thus, if you file a motion to correct error, your proposed order should contain the specifics required by the Rule. If it does not, then the remedy on appeal is reinstatement of the jury verdict.
Lessons:
- If a trial court grants a new trial because the verdict does not accord with the evidence, it must make specific findings supporting that decision.
- The appellate remedy for a trial court's failure to comply with Trial Rule 59(J) is to reinstate the jury verdict.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/166
