Boggavarapu v. Ponist
1988 Pa. LEXIS 149, 542 A.2d 516, 518 Pa. 162 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury is not required to award damages for pain and suffering for every tortious injury. Where a plaintiff's claim of pain is subjective and the jury rejects the asserted physical cause of that pain, the jury may award damages for medical expenses alone without being overturned.
Facts:
- Richard and Carol Ponist's dog bit Rao Boggavarapu on his right arm, inflicting two puncture wounds.
- Boggavarapu sought treatment at the East Suburban Health Center's emergency room.
- At the health center, medical staff covered his wounds with a band-aid and administered two tetanus shots.
- Boggavarapu later claimed to suffer from severe pain, which he attributed exclusively to one of the tetanus needles improperly piercing his sciatic nerve.
- Boggavarapu did not complain that the dog bite itself caused his ongoing pain and suffering.
- Boggavarapu's wife, Vani Boggavarapu, also brought a claim for loss of consortium stemming from her husband's alleged injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Rao and Vani Boggavarapu sued Richard and Carol Ponist in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) for injuries resulting from a dog bite.
- The Ponists, as original defendants, joined the East Suburban Health Center and the treating physician as additional defendants.
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the Ponists liable but exculpating the additional defendants.
- The jury awarded Rao Boggavarapu $42.60 in damages, the exact cost of his emergency room visit, and awarded his wife nothing for loss of consortium.
- The Boggavarapus moved for a new trial, arguing the damages were inadequate for failing to compensate for pain and suffering.
- The trial court judge granted the motion for a new trial.
- The Ponists, as appellants, appealed the order for a new trial to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial.
- The Ponists then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury's verdict that awards damages for medical expenses but nothing for pain and suffering require the grant of a new trial when the plaintiff's claim of pain is subjective and the jury rejects the plaintiff's asserted cause for that pain?
Opinions:
Majority - McDermott, Justice.
No, a jury's verdict awarding medical expenses but zero for pain and suffering does not require a new trial under these circumstances. While some injuries are so obvious that pain is presumed and must be compensated, a jury is not compelled to believe a plaintiff's subjective claims of pain. Here, Boggavarapu attributed all his significant pain to the tetanus shot piercing his sciatic nerve, a claim vigorously contested with expert medical testimony. The jury was entitled to reject this asserted cause of pain. Having rejected the plaintiff's theory of how the severe pain occurred, the jury was left with the dog bite itself, which it could reasonably conclude was a minor injury causing only a 'momentary stab of fear and pain' not warranting compensation beyond the cost of emergency room treatment. The jury, as the trier of fact, has the prerogative to believe all, some, or none of the evidence, and its verdict should stand.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between objective injuries, where pain and suffering are inherent, and subjective claims of pain, where the jury's role as fact-finder is paramount. It clarifies that a plaintiff must not only prove a tort occurred but must also persuade the jury that compensable damages, such as pain, were actually caused by that tort. The ruling serves as a significant check on trial judges' power to grant new trials based on perceived inadequacies in damage awards, emphasizing that a judge cannot simply substitute their own judgment for the jury's on matters of credibility and causation. This precedent protects the finality of jury verdicts, especially in cases involving minor impacts with claims of disproportionately large, subjective injuries.
