The Dallas Court of Appeals upheld a ruling for damages from a Rockwall Car Accident case. The case ROBERT MILLER, Appellant vs. MATTHEW AARON CHURCHES, Appellee was tried before a jury in the 382nd Judicial District Court in Rockwall County.
What happened?Matthew Aaron Charles, the Defendant, was found responsible for a car accident in Rockwall in which Robert Miller, the Plaintiff, was injured. Robert Miller sued Mr. Charles and they had a jury trial.
From the opinion-
The jury awarded Miller $23,810.45 for past medical expenses and past physical pain. The jury declined to award him damages for future medical expenses or future physical pain, and it declined to award any damages for loss of earning capacity or physical impairment. Miller appeals, contending the evidence is factually insufficient to support the jury’s award. Specifically, Miller complains of the jury’s failure to compensate him adequately for purportedly accident-related injuries to his hip, lower back, and neck.
Miller appealed the verdict and asked that the appellate court overturn this result and allow him to recover for his future medical expenses and his hip, back and neck injuries.
What’s the law say about asking for medical expenses and damages for car wreck injuries on appeal? Basically, the law favors not overturning a factual finding unless there is great evidence to the contrary.
From the opinion-
When a party attacks the factual sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue on which he had the burden of proof, he must demonstrate on appeal that the adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001). We consider and weigh all of the evidence, and we will set aside a verdict on the issue only if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust. Id.
Miller had a pre existing condition in his spine and hip prior to the accident, and had underwent spinal fusion surgery. Still, miller was able to work up until the accident. Miller argued that the accident caused further injuries to his condition and made it impossible for him to continue working. The Defendant put on an expert to testify that Miller’s injuries from the accident were treated and resolved. Miller challenged this expert’s testimony as a “mere conclusion” of a credential witness. That is, that this witness is qualified as an expert but his opinion was not based upon the correct foundation of knowledge and research into Miller’s condition. The court of appeals ruled against Miller on this issue as well and upheld the experts testimony.
Ultimately the Dallas court of appeals upheld the jury’s verdict and denied Miller’s appeal.
If you have been injured in a Rockwall Car Accident call our car accident and injury team.