Opinion
No. 05-09-01502-CV
Opinion issued January 28, 2011.
On Appeal from the 44th District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 08-00317-B.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and O'NEILL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Natalie Hudgins appeals the trial court's judgment awarding Jason Logue $11,367 in past medical expenses on Logue's negligence claims arising from an underlying automobile accident. In two issues, Hudgins argues (1) the trial court erred in granting Logue's motion to disregard a jury answer and (2) the jury's verdict awarding $721 in past medical expenses should be upheld because there is more than a scintilla of evidence in the record to support it. We reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment that Logue recover $721 in damages, as determined by the jury.
In January 2006, Hudgins and Logue were involved in an automobile accident in which both cars were traveling approximately ten to fifteen miles per hour. Logue testified his vehicle was damaged on the front bumper, front right fender, front right tire, and front right rim. The vehicle was still driveable, and Logue did not have the vehicle repaired after the accident. Hudgins testified she was not injured in the accident and was not even jolted as a result of the impact. Hudgins was able to drive away from the scene of the accident, and she did not seek medical attention. However, later that evening Logue began experiencing pain in his neck, lower back, and shoulder, and he went to the emergency room at Mesquite Community Hospital. A doctor examined Logue, told him he was "going to be sore and hurting," and gave him prescriptions for pain and inflammation.
The next day, Logue sought treatment at Chiropractic Care Clinic in Richardson. Logue had been seeing a family chiropractor, Dr. Nearpass, on a regular basis for approximately ten years, but Logue did not seek treatment from Nearpass or mention his prior treatment to anyone at Chiropractic Care Clinic. Logue testified he had been in the "tile business" for about seventeen years doing construction work with ceramic tile, marble, granite, floor installation, and showers. Logue testified the materials he dealt with in his business all weighed between forty and a hundred pounds. At trial, Logue claimed $11,367 in medical expenses. This amount reflected $721 in medical expenses from his emergency treatment and the remainder was attributed to subsequent treatment. The jury awarded Logue $721 in past medical expenses, and Logue filed a motion to disregard the jury's award and to award him the full $11,367 in past medical expenses. The trial court granted Logue's motion and awarded him $11,367 in past medical expenses. This appeal followed.
In her first and second issues, Hudgins argues the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Logue's past medical expenses were established as a matter of law, and there is more than a scintilla of evidence in the record to support the jury's $721 verdict. A trial court may disregard a jury's findings and grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict when there is no evidence upon which the jury could have based its findings. Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1990). In other words, a trial court may render a judgment notwithstanding the verdict if a directed verdict would have been proper. Tex. R. Civ. P. 301; Fort Bend County Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Tex. 1991).
When a party with the burden of proof complains from an adverse jury finding on the basis that the matter was established as a matter of law, a two-pronged inquiry is required. Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989); Walker v. Ricks, 101 S.W.3d 740, 745 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). First, the reviewing court examines the record for evidence supporting the finding of fact and ignores all evidence to the contrary. Sterner, 767 S.W.2d at 690; Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 745. If there is more than a scintilla of competent evidence to support the jury's finding, we will reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 745. The evidence supporting a finding amounts to more than a scintilla if reasonable minds could arrive at the finding given the facts proved in the particular case. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1995); Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 745. Appellate courts must consider the evidence and inferences as they tend to support the jury's verdict and not with a view towards supporting the trial court's judgment. Mancorp, 802 S.W.2d at 227-28; Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 745. Second, if the court finds from the evidence that no evidence supports the finding, it must determine from the record whether the contrary proposition is established as a matter of law. Sterner, 767 S.W.2d at 690; Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 745. If any evidence of probative force supports a contested issue, the judgment notwithstanding the verdict was improperly granted. Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 745.
The finding at issue here is the amount the jury found for Logue's past medical expenses. Accordingly, we begin by reviewing the record for evidence supporting the jury's finding of $721 in past medical expenses. Logue's evidence showed the bill for his treatment in the emergency room on the day of the accident was $721. The next day, without mentioning his ten years of prior chiropractic treatment with Dr. Nearpass, Logue sought treatment at Chiropractic Care Clinic in Richardson. Logue's subsequent treatment at Chiropractic Care Clinic accounts for the remainder of the $11,367 he sought in past medical expenses.
Texas law clearly sets forth the evidence required to support a claim for past medical expenses; such a claim must be supported by evidence that such expenses were reasonably necessary for the plaintiff to incur as a result of his injuries. Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 746 (citing Transport Concepts, Inc. v. Reeves, 748 S.W.2d 302, 305 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ)). The two ways in which a plaintiff can prove necessity of past medical expenses are: (1) presenting expert testimony on the issues of reasonableness and necessity or (2) presenting an affidavit prepared and filed in compliance with section 18.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 746. Proof of amounts charged or paid for past medical expenses is not proof of the reasonableness of those expenses. Id. Further, evidence that medical expenses are reasonable and customary is no evidence concerning the "reasonable necessity" of those medical expenses and will not alone support an award. Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 746; Reeves, 748 S.W.2d at 305. Similarly, evidence presented in accordance with section 18.001 does not conclusively establish the amount of damages nor does it establish a causal nexus between the accident and the damages. Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 748.
After reviewing the record under the standards of review set forth above, we conclude there is more than a scintilla of competent evidence to support the jury's finding that Logue was entitled only to the $721 in past medical expenses incurred when he sought treatment in the emergency room on the day of the accident. Accordingly, the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's findings and rendering judgment for Logue in the amount of $11, 367 for past medical expenses, notwithstanding the jury's verdict. See Walker, 101 S.W.3d at 745-48. Further, we conclude Logue did not establish $11,367 in past medical expenses as a matter of law, despite the affidavits setting forth such amounts in compliance with section 18.001. See id at 748. We sustain Hudgins' first and second issues.
We reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment in favor of Logue in the amount of $721.