Guidry v. Lafayette Health Ventures, Inc.

Citations: 191 So. 3d 1; 15 La.App. 3 Cir. 307; 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2193; 2015 WL 6735650Docket: No. 15-307

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 3, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On May 14, 2012, Calvin Joseph Guidry, Jr. was driving his Chevrolet pickup truck with his sister, Kimberly Guidry, as a passenger when their vehicle was involved in a collision caused by Karl Credeur, who ran a red light while driving a Dodge Caravan owned by Lafayette Health Ventures, Inc. (LHV). Both Calvin and Kimberly sustained injuries; Kimberly was taken to the hospital with complaints of lower back and knee pain. She underwent various medical evaluations and treatments, including an MRI that revealed an L-5 annular bulge and a small disc protrusion. Multiple orthopedic specialists treated her, noting pre-existing arthritis but attributing the aggravation of her condition to the accident.

Kimberly and Calvin filed a petition for damages exceeding $50,000 against Credeur, LHV, and its insurer, QEB Specialty Insurance Company. Before the trial, Calvin settled his claims, while it was stipulated that Credeur was solely at fault. The authenticity of Kimberly's medical expenses totaling $26,244.22 was acknowledged by the defendants, who disputed causation. During the trial, Kimberly presented deposition testimonies from her treating physicians, who supported her claim that the accident exacerbated her pre-existing conditions. However, the defense contended that the physicians disagreed on the treatment and source of her pain. Kimberly claimed damages for future medical expenses and wage loss, asserting she was pain-free before the accident despite her prior conditions.

Kimberly consulted Glenn Hebert, a licensed vocational rehabilitation counselor, who assessed her as temporarily, totally disabled and unsuitable for work until she underwent corrective back surgery. In contrast, Ted Deshotels, another vocational rehabilitation counselor for the defendants, disagreed, believing Kimberly could return to work, though he acknowledged potential difficulties due to her cardiac condition rather than her injuries from the accident. Kimberly also presented testimony from economist John Theriot, who estimated her past lost income at $40,764 and future income loss at approximately $170,000, while the defendants’ economist, not present at trial, calculated her past losses at about $52,000. Ultimately, the jury ruled that Kimberly was not entitled to damages, prompting her to file a motion for a new trial, which was denied despite the trial court's acknowledgment that the verdict seemed harsh. Kimberly's appeal asserts two main errors: the jury's manifest error in determining she was not injured in the accident and the trial judge's failure to grant a new trial based on contrary evidence. The appellate court's review standard emphasizes that it will not overturn a trial court's factual findings unless there is a clear lack of reasonable factual basis or if the findings are manifestly erroneous, focusing on whether the factfinder's conclusions were reasonable, rather than correct.

The Court has a constitutional duty to assess whether the trial court's judgment is supported by the entire record. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the fact in question must be shown to be more likely true than not. Uncontroverted evidence is accepted as true unless there are reasons to doubt its reliability. Kimberly asserts her injuries from an accident should be presumed caused by the incident, while the Defendants argue that she had pre-existing health issues that negate this presumption. Louisiana law provides that a presumption of causation applies if three criteria are met: the individual was in good health before the accident, symptoms appeared immediately after, and there is a reasonable causal link between the accident and the injuries. In Kimberly's case, the evidence shows she was not in good health prior to the accident due to existing back, knee, and heart conditions, and many symptoms claimed to have developed post-accident were present beforehand. Medical experts, including those for both parties, indicated she experienced an aggravation of pre-existing conditions due to the accident, making her injuries compensable. The jury erred in ignoring this expert testimony, which confirmed that the accident exacerbated her prior health issues. Notably, even the defense's medical expert acknowledged the aggravation of Kimberly's existing conditions due to the accident, although he did not attribute new structural damage to the accident.

Dr. Budden testified that with appropriate treatment, Kimberly's symptoms typically would improve within six months. He acknowledged that Kimberly injured her right knee, contused it, and likely exacerbated existing degenerative arthritis. He affirmed the timeliness and necessity of Dr. Miller's treatment recommendations, including physical therapy and epidural steroid injections, but disagreed with Dr. Wyatt's suggestion for rhizotomies, citing no evidence of nerve root pressure from the lumbar MRI. Defendants highlighted Kimberly's omission of prior back and knee issues, including a past accident, in her history to Dr. Budden, suggesting this impacted her credibility and influenced the jury's decision to deny her damages. Although the jury may have relied on her credibility, such determinations do not prevent appellate review of the verdict's basis. 

The evidence confirmed a vehicular accident occurred while Kimberly was a passenger in a vehicle hit by the Borel vehicle, resulting in approximately $2,200 in damage, primarily to her side of the vehicle. Kimberly was transported to the hospital with complaints of lower back and knee pain, with medical evidence indicating her pre-existing conditions were aggravated by the accident. The jury's decision to award zero damages was deemed unreasonable and legally unsustainable. Consequently, the court determined that the lower judgment was flawed due to error and conducted a de novo review to establish appropriate general and special damages for Kimberly's injuries, which include pain, suffering, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life, as outlined in relevant case law. There is no fixed rule for assessing general damages; each case's specific facts and circumstances must guide the determination.

Kimberly's case establishes that she experienced an aggravation of pre-existing conditions due to an accident, a conclusion unanimously supported by her treating physicians. However, the severity of this aggravation was disputed, evidenced by inconsistencies in her complaints and trial testimony. Kimberly failed to disclose her pre-existing back and knee issues to Dr. Budden and unilaterally discontinued physical therapy, claiming it exacerbated her symptoms, despite Dr. Wyatt’s records indicating it provided temporary relief. Dr. Budden concluded that Kimberly's knee and back injuries should have resolved within six months and deemed her treatments, including two steroid injections and pain medication, warranted. A general damages award of $25,000 was determined based on similar prior awards. Additionally, Kimberly's medical expenses of $26,244.22 were fully awarded, as the defendants acknowledged their authenticity and Dr. Budden supported the timeliness of the treatments. However, Kimberly's request for future medical expenses related to rhizotomies was denied, as Dr. Budden and other physicians disagreed on their necessity, finding no evidence of nerve root pressure in her MRI. Thus, no future medical expenses were awarded, as Kimberly failed to prove this component of damages.

Kimberly asserts a claim for lost earnings, necessitating proof that she would have earned wages but for the accident. The plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate both past lost earnings and the duration of work missed. An economist testified that Kimberly's average yearly earnings were $19,149.00, resulting in a claim for $9,574.50 for six months of lost work. The court found clear error in the jury's assessment, reversing the verdict in favor of the defendants and awarding Kimberly $9,574.50 for past lost wages, $26,244.22 for past medical expenses, and $25,000.00 in general damages. Additionally, all appeal costs are assigned to the defendants. A rhizotomy, a procedure to alleviate pain by destroying a nerve, is mentioned in the context of injuries suffered by another party, Calvin, who settled his claims, while Kimberly received no compensation for her injuries, even for the ambulance ride.