Davis v. Foremost Dairies
58 So. 3d 977, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 201, 2011 WL 526461 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover damages for future lost wages or impaired earning capacity, a plaintiff must present medical evidence establishing with reasonable certainty that a residual disability causally related to the accident exists. Similarly, an award for future medical expenses must be established with some degree of certainty through medical testimony indicating the necessity, probable cost, and likely duration of the treatment.
Facts:
- On April 11, 2005, Kristin Davis's vehicle was struck on the front passenger side by a Foremost Dairy truck that ran a stop sign.
- Immediately following the collision, Davis experienced a headache and pain in her neck and shoulders, and was diagnosed with neck strain at an emergency room.
- Davis completed her student teaching and graduated with a college degree in December 2005, beginning a full-time teaching job in January 2006.
- In November 2005, Davis fell down a flight of stairs, and in January 2007, a student grabbed her by the neck; she testified these events aggravated her pre-existing pain but did not cause new symptoms.
- An MRI in January 2006 revealed a bulging disc at C6-7 in her cervical spine.
- Davis took extended leave from her teaching position beginning in January 2007 due to her pain and did not return to full-time teaching, later securing part-time administrative work.
- Between 2007 and 2009, Davis underwent numerous medical procedures for her pain, including steroid injections, a discogram, and multiple rhizotomies (a nerve-burning procedure).
Procedural Posture:
- Kristin Davis filed suit against Foremost Dairies and its driver in a Louisiana state trial court for personal injuries.
- The defendants admitted liability for causing the accident.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial on the issues of causation and the amount of damages.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Davis, awarding her a total of $2,654,249.99.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Louisiana law, must a plaintiff provide medical expert testimony establishing a residual disability to a reasonable certainty to recover damages for future lost wages and future household services?
Opinions:
Majority - Caraway, J.
Yes. To obtain an award for future loss of wages, a plaintiff must present medical evidence which indicates with reasonable certainty that a residual disability causally related to the accident exists. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the 2005 accident caused Davis's injuries, applying the manifest error standard of review and deferring to the trial court's credibility determinations. However, the court reversed the awards for future lost wages and future household services because Davis failed to provide any medical expert testimony establishing she was disabled from her teaching profession or from performing household duties. Davis's own lay testimony about her physical limitations was insufficient without corroborating medical evidence of a functional impairment. The court also amended the future medical expenses award, finding that a lifetime of semi-annual rhizotomy procedures was speculative and not supported by medical testimony establishing the necessity or effectiveness of such treatment over a 54-year period. The award was reduced to cover a 30-year term.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical evidentiary requirement of expert medical testimony to substantiate claims for future damages in personal injury cases. It clarifies that a plaintiff's subjective testimony regarding pain and inability to work, while relevant, is insufficient on its own to prove the requisite level of disability for an award of future lost wages. The ruling sets a precedent for courts to scrutinize long-term future medical expense projections, demanding medical testimony that supports not only the necessity of a procedure but also its viability and probable duration over the plaintiff's lifetime. This holding serves to curb speculative damage awards that are not grounded in medical certainty.
