The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
18-712
CHAD LANGLINAIS AND WENDY LEJEUNE
VERSUS
DERRICK LEBLANC, ET AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2015-3602, DIV. H
HONORABLE RONALD F. WARE, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, D. Kent Savoie, and Jonathan W. Perry,
Judges.
REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED, IN PART;
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED; AND
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
H. Alston Johnson, III
Phelps, Dunbar LLP
Post Office Box 4412
Baton Rouge, LA 70802-4412
(225) 346-0285
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS:
Derrick Leblanc
Calcasieu Parish Police Jury
Michael J. Williamson
Plauche, Smith & Nieset LLC
1123 Pithon Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 436-0522
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS:
Derrick Leblanc
Calcasieu Parish Police Jury
Robert I. Siegel
Gieger, LaBorde & Laperouse, L.L.C.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 4800
New Orleans, LA 70139-4800
(504) 561-0400
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Berkley Insurance Company
Barry A. Roach
Christopher S. Lacombe
Larry A. Roach, Inc.
2917 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 433-8504
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES:
Wendy Lejeune
Chad Langlinais
John R. Shea
John Shea & Associates
1817 W. University Avenue
Lafayette, LA 70506
(337) 981-7432
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES:
Chad Langlinais
Wendy Lejeune
Thomas M. Daigle
Attorney at Law
711 Johnston Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 234-4049
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES:
Chad Langlinais
Wendy Lejeune
PICKETT, Judge.
After the vehicle in which they were traveling was hit from behind, the two
plaintiffs filed suit against the driver of the vehicle that hit them, his employer, and
the employer’s insurer to recover damages for the injuries they claimed to have
suffered as a result of the accident. The matter was tried before a jury which
awarded damages to one plaintiff but not the other. Each plaintiff filed a motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) which the trial court granted.
The defendants appealed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part,
reverse in part, and amend in part, the trial court’s judgments granting the JNOV.
FACTS
On June 15, 2015, Chad Langlinais and Wendy Lejeune, his girlfriend, were
traveling together in Chad’s truck in Lake Charles. Chad stopped his truck at a red
light and waited to make a left turn. Derrick Leblanc was traveling behind Chad’s
truck in a van owned by the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury (CPPJ) and insured by
Berkley Insurance Company. Derrick failed to stop the van and collided with the
rear of Chad’s truck.
Chad and Wendy filed suit against Derrick, CPPJ, and Berkley to recover
damages for personal injuries they claim to have suffered in the accident (the
accident). Chad asserted that his back and neck were injured in the accident, and
Wendy asserted that her neck, back, and face were injured in the accident.
The matter was tried before a jury in October 2017. The parties stipulated
that Leblanc was acting in the course and scope of his employment with CPPJ at
the time of the accident, and his vault caused the accident. The extent of the
damages Chad and Wendy suffered as a result of the accident was greatly
contested because both of them had pre-existing neck injuries. Before and at the
time of the accident, they were in a pain management program to address the pain
and other symptoms they suffered as a result of their prior neck injuries. They
argue the impact of the van was severe and aggravated their pre-existing neck
conditions, as well as caused new injuries. Chad testified that the accident
occurred without warning when the CPPJ van “plowed” into his truck and that the
repairs to his truck totaled $17,000.00. They introduced photographs of both
vehicles and Wendy’s face to establish the severity of the collision. The
defendants established that both Chad and Wendy had serious credibility issues.
On October 13, 2017, the jury rendered its verdicts on Chad’s and Wendy’s
claims. The jury awarded Chad damages for past medical expenses in the amount
of $125,000.00, past loss of earnings and earning capacity in the amount of
$100,000.00, and past pain and suffering in the amount of $5,000.00, but denied
his remaining claims for damages. The jury did not award Wendy any damages for
her claims. The trial court signed judgments in conformity with the jury’s verdicts.
Chad and Wendy each filed a motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, motion
for new trial. After a hearing on the motions, the trial court granted the motions
for JNOV as requested. It increased Chad’s damage awards and awarded Wendy
damages. The defendants appealed and now assign two errors with the trial court’s
actions.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1. The trial judge erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motions for
[JNOV] as to the damage awards, replacing the jury’s considered and
unanimous verdict with his own view of appropriate damages; or in
the alternative, if the judgment[s] NOV [were] properly granted, the
awards of damages in [them] are an abuse of discretion.
2. The trial judge erred in failing to order reversionary trusts as
required by La. R.S. 13:5106(B)(3)(a) to be created for the awards of
future medical expenses which he made in the judgments NOV, to be
disbursed only in accordance with that statutory provision; and he
erred in adding judicial interest to awards of future medical expenses
which he made in the judgments NOV.
2
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
A JNOV allows the trial court to modify the jury’s findings to correct a
jury’s verdict as to liability or damages. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1811. Our supreme
court outlined the criteria for granting such relief in Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill,
Inc., 00-628, pp. 4-5 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94, 99 (citations omitted):
The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so
strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable persons could
not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a
preponderance of evidence for the mover. The motion should be
denied if there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such
quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the
exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. In
making this determination, the trial court should not evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual
questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.
Appellate courts apply the same standard to determine whether the trial court
properly granted the JNOV. Pitts v. La Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 16-1232 (La. 3/15/17),
218 So.3d 58. If a trial court properly grants a JNOV, it becomes the trier of fact
and makes “an independent assessment of the damages and award[s] a proper
amount of compensation under the facts of the particular case.” Anderson v. New
Orleans Pub. Servs., Inc., 583 So.2d 829, 834 (La. 1991). On appeal, the trial
court’s damage awards are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Id.
Pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard of review, the appellate court considers
the damage awards in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case
before the court. Miller v. LAMMICO, 07-1352 (La. 1/16/08), 973 So.2d 693.
Consideration of prior damage awards is appropriate only if the review of facts
shows an abuse of discretion by the fact finder. Id.
DISCUSSION
Chad argued in his motion for JNOV that all but one of the jury’s damage
awards were “abusively low and reasonable persons could not arrive at a similar
3
verdict” and that the jury’s award for his past pain and suffering was inconsistent
with the jury’s other damage awards. Wendy argued that the jury’s refusal to
award her damages was unreasonable in light of the medical evidence she
presented at trial. The defendants opposed both motions. They argued that based
on Chad’s and Wendy’s histories of untruthfulness, the jury validly determined
that their claims for aggravation of their pre-existing neck injuries were not proven.
The trial court agreed with Chad’s and Wendy’s claims and granted their motions
for JNOV.
Chad Langlinais
The trial court granted Chad’s JNOV finding that the jury’s damage awards
were inconsistent and irreconcilable with each other. After granting Chad’s
motion for JNOV, the trial court increased the jury’s damage awards as follows:
Past Medical Expenses $ 133,198.00
Future Medical Expenses 393,709.00
Past Loss of Earnings 100,000.00
Future Loss of Earnings 1,024,555.00
Past Pain and Suffering 75,000.00
Future Pain and Suffering 125,000.00
Loss of Enjoyment of Life 75,000.00
Future Loss of Enjoyment of Life 125,000.00
Past Disability 75,000.00
Future Disability 125,000.00
Past Mental Anguish 50,000.00
Future Mental Anguish 75.000.00
$2,376,462.00
Chad claims the accident exacerbated a pre-existing injury to his neck and
injured his lower back and that both injuries require surgical intervention. He
further argues that he can no longer work as a result of his injuries. The defendants
argue that neither Chad’s back nor his neck was injured in the accident. They
4
contend the trial court erred in granting Chad’s motion for JNOV and in awarding
him excessive damages.
At the time of the accident, Chad was forty-eight years of age. Throughout
his adult life, he worked in industrial construction and operated heavy equipment,
including operating jack hammers and cranes. Chad sustained a serious injury to
his neck in 2013 when he was operating a jack hammer. Beginning in the fall of
2013, he continuously sought medical treatment for his neck. An MRI obtained in
July 2013 showed multilevel degenerative disc disease of his cervical spine,
moderate spinal canal narrowing at C6-7, and severe narrowing of the foramina
and bone spurring that was most advanced at C6-7.
From that time until the accident, Chad had continuous treatment for his
neck. On October 11, 2013, Chad saw Dr. Gregory Rubino, a neurosurgeon, who
performed an extensive examination and rated Chad’s functional impairment as
“very severe.” His examination showed that Chad had numbness and tingling in
his entire left hand and that his pain was aggravated by turning his head left or
right, extending his neck to look up or down, lifting overhead, or throwing, and
lifting repetitive. Dr. Rubino reported that Chad had full strength and sensation in
his upper extremities but atrophy of his left triceps. Dr. Rubino prescribed
physical therapy, and Chad attended six physical therapy sessions in November
and December 2013, during which his 10/10 neck pain1 improved. At his last
session, however, he reported that he was in too much pain to perform therapy.
On December 2, 2013, Chad began treatment with Dr. Sidney Crackower, a
pain management physician. On December 30, 2013, Chad reported his 10/10 pain
had decreased to 7/10. Thereafter, he reported his pain as 4/10 until June 22, 2015,
1
Throughout this opinion, the pain ratings are based on a pain scale where 1/10 is the
lowest pain rating and 10/10 is the highest pain rating.
5
one week after the accident. On that date, he reported his pain as 6/10. One month
later, he reported his pain as 5/10. On that visit, Dr. Crackower noted that Chad
had muscle spasms in his neck and back. He referred Chad to Dr. Roland Miller,
an orthopedic surgeon, because Chad’s neck and back pain increased when looking
up and looking down. Dr. Miller ordered an MRI of Chad’s neck and back. The
July 2015 MRI of Chad’s neck was essentially the same as the July 2013 MRI, but
the MRI of his back showed a degenerative disc at L5-S1 with a small tear. Dr.
Miller prescribed physical therapy which Chad attended for thirteen sessions.
With therapy, his complaints steadily improved. He rated his pain as 5/10, 6/10,
and 4/10 from September 23, 2015, through October 27, 2015. During that period,
on October 14, he reported that the radicular symptoms in his left arm were better,
and on October 20, he had no radicular symptoms in his left arm. Two days later,
he reported that his headaches and the radicular symptoms in his left arm were
better. At his last therapy session, on November 11, 2015, Chad complained that
his low back pain was pretty severe and rated his pain 8/10. Nonetheless, he also
reported that the pain between his shoulders and the radicular symptoms down his
left arm had improved.
In February 2016, Chad sought treatment with Dr. George Williams, an
orthopedic surgeon. He reported constant deep back pain that radiated into his
right thigh that began after the June 2015 accident and also complained of neck
pain that radiated down his left arm and possibly his right arm. He did not report
his prior neck problems. Dr. Williams ordered an MRI of Chad’s back, which
showed that his back was essentially the same as shown on the 2015 MRI. A
steroid injection and physical therapy did not relieve Chad’s back pain, and Dr.
Williams performed surgery on Chad’s back in May 2016. Dr. Williams testified
that more probably than not the back surgery was necessitated by the June 2016
6
accident. Dr. Williams also recommended that Chad no longer work as a crane
operator due to the condition of his back and that he not lift more than 20 pounds.
Dr. Williams then recommended that Chad have neck surgery. A May 2016
cervical MRI did not show a new herniation but showed a disc protrusion and
osteophyte compressing the spinal cord and nerves at C6-7 that did not exist on the
July 2015 MRI. Dr. Williams opined that more probably than not the injuries
Chad suffered in the accident necessitated the neck surgery. Dr. Williams did not
know about Chad’s prior neck problems until defense counsel had him review the
2013 MRI of Chad’s neck during trial. After reviewing the MRI, he revised his
opinion and testified that more probably than not the accident aggravated Chad’s
pre-existing neck condition. Dr. Williams acknowledged that Chad had a serious
and longstanding pre-existing condition and testified that based on the 2013 MRI,
Chad needed neck surgery before the accident. He testified that the neck surgery
he recommended was needed to improve the quality of Chad’s life and the function
in his arms and neck.
On Dr. Williams’ recommendation, Chad began treatment with Dr. Stephen
Wyble, an anesthesiologist and pain management physician, in September 2016.
As before, pain management and physical therapy relieved Chad’s neck pain, and
his pain subsided from 8/10. In January 2017, Chad reported his neck pain as 4/10
on three visits and 3/10 on one visit. At his last visit on August 28, 2017, Chad
reported his pain as 5/10.
Dr. Lawrence Messina, an orthopedic surgeon, examined Chad on May 31,
2016. Dr. Messina compared the 2013 and 2016 MRIs of Chad’s neck and found
that the 2016 MRI evidenced changes consistent with degenerative disc disease.
He testified that the degenerative changes in Chad’s neck occurred over time, not
acutely. Specifically, Dr. Messina pointed out that there were bony changes at the
7
end plates of Chad’s cervical spine that take years to develop and narrowing of
disc spaces which is common in people with degenerative disc disease. In his
opinion, the fusion Dr. Williams recommended at the C6-7 level in Chad’s neck
more probably than not was related to its pre-accident condition, not the accident.
Dr. Messina acknowledged that Chad had suffered a herniated lumbar disc in the
accident but opined that back surgery was not appropriate because Chad had not
had a steroid injection or participated in physical therapy. Chad, however, had
both treatments with no relief before Dr. Williams recommended surgery.
The defendants highlighted many instances that they claim show Chad was
dishonest. He intentionally denied having prior neck problems to potential
employers and lied under oath during trial depositions. Additionally, he testified
that he left Dr. Crackower’s treatment because Dr. Crackower only gave him
prescription drugs and was not doing anything to help him. Chad further testified
that at the time of the accident, he had been having Dr. Crackowner’s prescriptions
filled but was not taking the medications. According to Chad, he weaned himself
off opioids without Dr. Crackower’s knowledge or assistance because he was
afraid of becoming addicted. Yet, he did not explain why he had the prescriptions
filled if he was not taking the medications or what he did with the unused
medications. Dr. Crackower was upset to learn that Chad had violated his
agreement for treatment. Additionally, Chad did not inform Dr. Williams or Dr.
Wyble of his 2013 neck injury. Neither knew until they were testifying at trial
how severe his pre-existing neck condition was before the accident or that he
allegedly obtained medications for his neck pain but did not use them. Chad also
made misrepresentations about the extent of his prior neck problems to his
vocational rehabilitation expert.
8
Chad argues that he was entitled to a JNOV on the issue of damages because
some of the jury’s damage awards were inconsistent and irreconcilable with each
other and, therefore, unreasonable under the evidence. The defendants contend
that the jury’s verdict shows the jury believed Chad’s back was injured in the
accident and required surgical repair but either did not believe his neck was injured
in the accident, or if it was, the aggravation resolved before trial. We agree with
the defendants. We also agree the medical evidence supports that decision.
Based on the medical evidence, including the conflicting medical opinions
regarding the extent to which the accident aggravated Chad’s neck condition and
medical records showing the pain in his neck returned to its pre-accident level after
the accident, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the accident aggravated
Chad’s pre-existing neck injury. It could have also concluded that the aggravation
resolved prior to trial such that Chad had not proved he was entitled to recover all
of the $133,198.00 past medical expenses he claims. Chad saw the same medical
providers for both his back and neck and, except for his back surgery, the treatment
he received for his back and neck was similar and rendered at the same time. As a
result, it is unlikely the jury could have determined on its own exactly what costs
applied solely to Chad’s neck. The jury’s award of $125,000.00 represents 94% of
Chad’s past medical expenses. This award is not unreasonable under the evidence,
and we reverse the trial court’s grant of JNOV as to this award.
We now consider the jury’s single general damage award of $5,000.00 and
find that the medical evidence shows it is inconsistent with its awards of all Chad’s
past lost earnings and the vast majority of his past medical expenses and is
unreasonable in light of its conclusion that Chad’s back was injured in the accident
and required surgery. The jury found that Chad’s herniated lumbar disc was
caused by the accident but did not award him any future damages, although the
9
medical evidence established that his back injury would prevent him from
returning to work as a crane operator, even if he had a successful neck surgery that
alleviated his current limitations. For these reasons, the trial court did not err in
granting the JNOV as to the remaining damage awards. Minton v. GEICO
Casualty Co., 16-592 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/8/17), 215 So.3d 290, writ denied, 17-603
(La. 5/26/17), 221 So.3d 856; Barras v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 14-898 (La.App.
3 Cir. 2/11/15), 157 So.3d 1185, writ denied, 15-512 (La. 6/1/15), 171 So.3d 261.
After granting the JNOV, the trial court became the trier of fact and awarded
damages after a de novo review of the evidence. We now review the damage
awards to determine whether they constitute an abuse of discretion.
To recover past medical expenses, Chad had to present medical testimony to
prove he suffered an injury in the accident at issue and that the injury was caused
by the accident. Reed v. LaCombe, 15-120 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/29/15), 172 So.3d
679. The trial court awarded Chad $393,709.00 in future medical expenses. To
prove he is entitled to an award of future medical expenses, Chad had to show
more probably than not that the expenses he seeks to recover were necessitated by
the accident, what the expenses will probably cost, and that they would be
incurred. Guidry v. Allstate Ins. Co., 11-517 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/21/11), 83 So.3d
91, writ denied, 12-225 (La. 3/30/12), 85 So.3d 121. A claim for future medical
expenses must be established with some degree of certainty; however, it is
recognized that such claims are somewhat speculative. Menard v. Lafayette Ins.
Co., 09-1869 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So.3d 996.
Dr. Williams testified that the neck surgery he recommended for Chad
would cost approximately $120,000.00. He also prepared a plan for future medical
treatment he believed Chad would need or would benefit him that totals
10
$273,709.00. Based on this evidence, we cannot say the trial court’s award is
excessive. Guidry, 83 So.3d 91.
The trial court awarded Chad $1,024,555.00 for future lost earnings. This
award is based on the testimony of Theodore Deshotels, Chad’s vocational
rehabilitation expert, and Wesley Austin, his economist. Mr. Austin testified that
the trial court’s award represents the present value of Chad’s future lost earnings
claim. The defendants argue this amount is not substantiated by Mr. Deshotels’
testimony.
Mr. Deshotels’ testimony was based on Dr. Williams’ testimony that Chad
would no longer be able to work as a crane operator and would be limited to light
work in the future. After considering Chad’s lack of a high school diploma, his
work history, and the results of testing he administered, Mr. Deshotels testified that
Chad would only be able to earn an average of $18,000.00 per year as compared to
his pre-accident annual earnings of $63,500.00.
Mr. Austin testified that he used this testimony to calculate three different
values for Chad’s future lost earnings claim. The first was based on a work-life
expectancy of eleven years; the second was based on an eighteen-year work-life
expectancy to age sixty-seven; and the third was based on a twenty-one year work-
life expectancy to age seventy. The trial court awarded Chad $1,024,555.00 which
is the amount Mr. Austin testified represents Chad’s future lost earnings claim if he
elects to begin receiving Social Security benefits at age sixty-seven.
We have reviewed Mr. Austin’s testimony and Mr. Deshotels’ testimony and
agree that $1,024,555.00 is not substantiated by Mr. Deshotels’s testimony.
According to Mr. Deshotels’ testimony, if Chad retires at age sixty-seven, his
future lost earnings would be the total of his pre-injury earnings of $63,500.00 less
his post-accident earnings of $18,000.00 multiplied by the number of years
11
between his age at the time of trial, forty-nine, and sixty-seven. Simplified, the
equation is $45,500.00 x 18 which equals $819,000.00. The present day value of
Chad’s $819,000.00 future lost earnings must be determined by applying a
discount rate, but Mr. Austin did not provide that calculation. Therefore, the trial
court erred in awarding Chad $1,024,555.00 for future loss of earnings.
Mr. Austin did not identify the discount rate he used in his other
calculations, and the calculation cannot be made based on the record. We have
reviewed the evidence and find that Mr. Deshotels’ and Mr. Austin’s testimonies
do substantiate an award of $678,686.00, which represents eleven years of his lost
future earnings discounted to present value. Accordingly, we reduce Chad’s award
for future lost earnings to $678,686.00.
In Bellard v. American Central Insurance Co., 07-1335, 07-1339, p. 29 (La.
4/18/08), 980 So.2d 654, 674, (citation omitted), our supreme court addressed
general damages, explaining: “General damages . . . ‘involve mental or physical
pain or suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification or physical
enjoyment, or other losses of life or life-style which cannot be definitely measured
in monetary terms.’” When assessing general damages for personal injuries, the
duration of a plaintiff’s symptoms and treatment are relevant factors to be
considered. Jones v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 16-463 (La.App 3 Cir. 12/29/16),
209 So.3d 912.
The trier of fact has vast discretion in awarding general damages. Appellate
courts do not amend general damages awards unless the record clearly reflects that
the trial court abused its discretion. Cox v. Moore, 01-878 (La.App. 3 Cir.
12/12/01), 805 So.2d 277, writ denied, 02-724 (La. 5/31/02), 817 So.2d 94. The
total general damage award should be considered to determine whether the trier of
fact abused its discretion in making the awards. Pitre v. Gov’t Emp. Ins. Co., 596
12
So.2d 256 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 600 So.2d 685 (La.1992). If an award is
determined to be excessive, prior awards should be considered to determine the
highest amount that is reasonably within the trier of fact’s discretion. Duncan v.
Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 00-66 (La. 10/30/00), 773 So.2d 670.
The trial court awarded Chad past general damages totaling $275,000.00,
which is represented by $75,000.00 each for past pain and suffering, past loss of
enjoyment of life, and past disability, and $50,000.00 for past mental anguish. The
trial court also awarded future general damages totaling $450,000.00 represented
by $125,000.00 each for future pain and suffering, future loss of enjoyment of life,
and future disability, and $75,000.00 for future mental anguish. The defendants
contend these awards are excessive and should be reduced.
In reviewing these general damage awards, we consider a number of factors.
First, the evidence shows the accident injured Chad’s back, causing a disc
herniation at L5-S1 and a torn disc that required that he undergo a transforaminal
lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1. According to Dr. Williams and Chad, this
surgery was a success, and Chad’s recovery went well. He did not require physical
therapy and his only regimen during recovery was walking. Second, based on
Chad’s reports, the medical experts all agreed the accident aggravated Chad’s pre-
existing neck condition. Dr. Williams testified that Chad’s pre-existing neck
condition was severe enough to warrant surgery one and one-half years before the
accident, and Chad underwent continuous medical treatment during that same time
period. After the accident, Chad’s medical records establish that by October 2015
his neck pain had returned to essentially the same level of pain he reported to
Dr. Crackower in the five months preceding the accident. Thereafter, his neck pain
did wax and wane as it had before the accident, but it improved to pre-accident
levels when he received pain management treatment with Dr. Wyble, just as it had
13
before the accident. Additionally, Dr. Williams testified that (1) after surgical
repair, Chad’s neck pain would be resolved, and he would have full range of
motion; and (2) if not for his back injury, Chad would be able to return to work as
a crane operator. Third, Chad testified that before the accident, his life was
“normal,” but since the accident, he can no longer do many activities, like boating,
skiing, fishing, and hunting, that he previously enjoyed. Fourth, Dr. Williams
testified because his back injury required a fusion, Chad will likely have back
issues in the future. Based on our review, we find that the trial court’s awards of
$275,000.00 for past general damages and $450,000.00 future general damages are
excessive and an abuse of discretion. We now consider awards for similar claims.
In Huntley v. 21st Century Premier Insurance Co., 16-514 (La. App. 3 Cir.
11/2/16), 204 So.3d 1085, writ denied, 17-148 (La. 3/13/17), 216 So.3d 803, this
court affirmed an award of $150,000.00 for past and future pain and suffering, and
$100,000.00 for past and future mental and emotional anguish to a plaintiff whose
injuries required a cervical fusion and a lumbar laminectomy, discectomy,
and fusion with instrumentation at L3-4. Additional awards of $25,000.00 each for
past and future disability and past and future loss of enjoyment of life were not
contested.
In Young v. Marsh, 49,496 (La.App. 2 Cir. 11/19/14), 153 So.3d 1245, the
plaintiff suffered herniated discs in his neck and back. His neck injury required
two anterior cervical fusions, one at C5-6 and another at C5, 6, and 7. His treating
physician also recommended two additional surgeries for a disc herniation at L5-
S1, but the plaintiff had not elected to have those surgeries before trial. The
second circuit affirmed the jury’s awards of $300,000.00 for the plaintiff’s neck
injury and $100,000.00 for his back injury.
14
Having considered the trial court’s awards in light of Chad’s injuries, his
prior neck injury and associated medical treatment, his anticipated future medical
treatment, and the impact his injuries and medical treatment have had and will
likely have on him physically and mentally, we reduce the trial court’s awards for
past general damages to $100,000.00 and future general damage awards to
$350,000.00.
Wendy Lejeune
Wendy contends the jury’s failure to award her any damages for the
aggravation of her pre-existing neck condition is unreasonable in light of the
evidence. The defendants proved to the jury that Wendy has serious credibility
issues, showing she had felony convictions for obtaining controlled dangerous
substances by misrepresentation and fraud, driving while intoxicated, driving while
under suspension, and theft; and that she had been fired for failing to account for
insurance policy premiums she allegedly collected on her employer’s behalf. With
regard to the JNOV, they argue that because she lacks credibility, the jury could
have reasonably concluded her injuries were so minor that they did not warrant an
award of damages.
Wendy testified that during the accident, her face hit something in Chad’s
truck that caused a black eye, a lump on her face that lasted two months, and pain
in her back and neck. She went to the emergency room after the accident, and the
emergency room physician ordered CT scans of her face and neck. The CT report
of Wendy’s face documented a bruise measuring approximately 1.1 centimeters by
3.3 centimeters, which is approximately one-half inch by one and one-half inches,
and swelling on her left cheek. There are no other records from that visit in the
record. A black and white photograph of Wendy’s face shows a small dark area on
15
her left cheek and two smaller dark spots, one on her nose and one below her left
eye. The photograph does not clearly show bruises on her face or eye.
Wendy had suffered a neck injury in an automobile accident in 2004, which
required a fusion at C5-6. Over time, the adjacent levels in her cervical spine
degenerated, and she began having neck pain that increased over time. She also
had other symptoms including shoulder pain, pain radiating down her arms, and
numbness in her hands. In 2008, Wendy sought relief for her neck pain and other
associated pain with pain management physicians in Texas. In July 2014, she went
to Dr. John Budden, an orthopedist, on one occasion, seeking a referral to Dr.
Crackower. At that time, she rated her pain as 7/10 on a scale of one to ten and
complained of pain radiating from her neck to both hands and numbness in both of
her hands, severe headaches, and muscle spasms in her neck. Dr. Budden reported
that x-rays taken that date revealed degenerative changes of the discs above and
below her fusion and straightening of her cervical spine. On physical examination,
he noted muscle spasms to the right and left of the posterior cervical spine and a
mildly positive Tinel sign over both flexor wrist creases. Wendy reported popping
in her neck with active motion.
In July 2014, Wendy began seeing Dr. Crackower for treatment. He testified
that on her first visit with him, Wendy complained of numbness in her hands but
did not complain of it again. He also testified that she complained of pain
radiating to both upper extremities throughout the time he treated her. Dr.
Crackower’s records show that after one month of treatment, Wendy’s neck pain
decreased from 7/10 to 5/10. After two months of treatment, her neck pain
decreased again from 5/10 and, thereafter, vacillated between 3/10 and 4/10 until
the accident, except for December 2014, when she reported on a pain form that she
had 7/10 persistent pain in her shoulders and neck, down her left arm into her
16
fingers. She also reported numbness and described her pain as sharp, shooting, and
stabbing. In July and August 2015 after the accident, Wendy rated her pain as
5/10. Dr. Crackower’s records do not show that she reported the accident to him.
Wendy first consulted Dr. Miller on June 26, 2015, complaining of pain in
her face, neck, back, and left shoulder. Based on her complaints, he ordered an
MRI of her neck and lower back. Her cervical MRI showed a broad-based disc
spur complex that was causing significant pressure at the C4-5 level, the level
above her prior fusion; a narrowing of the spinal canal; and moderate to severe left
neuroforaminal stenosis.2 Her lumbar MRI was normal. At her next visit, Wendy
reported that her neck pain had increased from 5/10 before the accident to 9/10
after the accident and that she could barely tolerate the pain even with pain
medication.
Wendy next began treatment with Dr. Williams. Dr. Williams testified the
July 2015 MRI showed that 95% of Wendy’s pain was caused by a combination of
the disc herniation and bone spur compressing her spinal cord at C4-5. He opined
that the MRI clearly showed a bruise on Wendy’s spinal cord at that level. He also
testified that she had a disc protrusion at C6-7 that did not touch the spinal cord.
Dr. Williams ordered another cervical MRI in June 2016. He testified this MRI
showed that the bruise on Wendy’s spinal cord had deteriorated to myelomalacia, a
serious permanent condition, and that her cervical spine would continue to worsen
without surgery. He related the degeneration of Wendy’s spine after July 2015 and
the need for surgery to the accident. Dr. Williams acknowledged that his opinion
2
Foraminal stenosis is defined as “the narrowing of the cervical disc space caused by
enlargement of a joint . . . in the spinal canal.” https://www.spine-health.com/glossary/
foraminal-stenosis.
17
as to causation was based on the history of Wendy’s complaints that she reported
to him and that he had not reviewed any of her prior medical records.
On cross-examination, Dr. Williams admitted that if Wendy had not been in
the accident, it is possible her pre-existing neck condition could have degenerated
to the condition evidenced on the May 2016 MRI. He further agreed that some of
Wendy’s pre-existing symptoms, such as numbness in her hands, radicular
symptoms in her arms, as well as her neck pain and the overall condition of her
cervical spine were also symptoms of myelomalacia. Dr. Williams explained,
however, that if the myelomalacia he diagnosed was the result of degeneration,
signs of cervical spondolitic myelopathy would have been present on the 2015
MRI, but none were.3
On July 13, 2017, Dr. Williams performed a three-level fusion at C4-7 to
address the compression of Wendy’s spinal cord and her related complaints. The
surgery did not relieve all of her complaints and symptoms, and Dr. Williams
testified that he needed to perform another surgery to address these issues.
On August 24, 2016, Dr. David Ferachi examined Wendy at the defendants’
request. Dr. Ferachi testified that he did not see any damage to Wendy’s spinal
cord on her 2015 MRI. Based on Wendy’s complaints, he concluded that the
accident aggravated her pre-existing condition of cervical spondylosis. He
disagreed with Dr. Williams’ recommendation for a C4-7 anterior cervical
discectomy and fusion because, in his opinion, her complaints did not correlate
3
“Cervical spondylotic myelopathy . . . is myelopathy (spinal cord damage) caused
by spondylosis (degeneration) in the cervical spine (neck).” Drs. Paul C. McCormick, Michael
G. Kaiser, PeterD. Angevine, Alfred T. Ogden, Christopher E. Mandigo, and Patrick C. Reid,
Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy, (2019), https://www.columbiaspine.org/condition/ cervical-
spond ylotic-myelopathy/.
18
with her radiographic findings.4 He noted that Wendy had severe numbness into
the palmar surfaces of her hands that was very generalized and testified that
nothing in her cervical spine related to this complaint. Dr. Ferachi further
explained that these symptoms could be caused by carpal tunnel syndrome,
squeezing of the nerve around the wrist, or cubital tunnel syndrome, squeezing of
the nerve around the elbow.
Dr. Ferachi acknowledged that injury at the C4-5 level can produce pain
which starts in the neck and goes into the shoulder blade, but he qualified his
agreement, explaining that based on her MRI, Wendy’s complaints would have
been unilateral, not diffused with hand numbing. Dr. Ferachi further testified that
upon examination, Wendy had a bilateral positive inverted radial reflex sign and a
bilateral positive Hoffman sign, which are signs of spinal cord injury or brain
lesion. He differentiated the implication of these signs as to Wendy’s situation,
explaining that the inverted radial reflex sign does not usually correlate to C5 and
that findings of both the positive Hoffman sign and inverted radial reflex sign can
occur in 15-20% of individuals with normal imaging. Dr. Ferachi found mild
spinal stenosis at C4-5, or narrowing of the space for the spinal cord, on Wendy’s
2015 MRI but did not find any spinal cord injury. He denied that Wendy had
myelomalacia of the spinal cord, stating that myelomalacia would indicate she had
cervical myelopathy, which she did not have.
Dr. Ferachi did not review Wendy’s June 2016 MRI. Wendy argues this
invalidates his opinion as to causation. Dr. Ferachi and Dr. Williams both testified
that the 2015 MRI did not show cervical myelopathy. Dr. Ferachi did not address
the 2016 MRI. Therefore, no evidence contradicts Dr. Williams’ opinion that
4
Dr. Ferachi agreed that the failure of Wendy’s complaints to correlate to her imaging
studies could be an indication that her complaints were made for secondary gain.
19
because the 2015 MRI did not show cervical myelopathy, the myelomalacia
depicted on the 2016 MRI was caused by the accident, not degeneration. For these
reasons, we find the jury’s verdict is unreasonable under the evidence and affirm
the trial court’s grant of JNOV in Wendy’s favor.
After granting the Wendy’s motion for JNOV, the trial court awarded
Wendy the following damages:
Past medical expenses $121,855.74
Future medical expenses 100,000.00
Past mental & physical 75,000.00
pain & suffering
Future mental & physical 100,000.00
pain & suffering
Past loss of enjoyment of life 20,000.00
Future loss of enjoyment of life 40,000.00
Past disability 20,000.00
Future disability 30,000.00
$506,855.74
Wendy’s past medical expenses were documented as having been incurred.
Dr. Williams testified that she needs an additional surgery and estimated its cost as
$100,000.00. Accordingly, we find no error with the trial court’s awards for past
and future medical expenses.
The trial court awarded Wendy a total of $115,000.00 in past general
damages and a total of $170,000.00 in future general damages. Again, we have
reviewed these awards in light of Wendy’s prior neck injury, the length of time she
required active pain management for neck pain and associated complaints, the fact
that she has had one surgery that increased her pain and faces another surgery, and
the impact her injuries and medical treatment have had and will likely have on her
physically and mentally, and we reduce the trial court’s awards for past general
20
damages to $75,000.00 and future general damage awards to $120,000.00.
Reversionary Trusts for Damages
Personal injury awards for future medical expenses entered against political
subdivisions are governed by the requirements of La.R.S.13:5106(B)(3)(a). 5 The
defendants contend the trial court failed to satisfy these requirements when it
improperly awarded future medical expenses to Chad and Wendy without ordering
that the awards are not subject to judicial interest and must be placed into a
reversionary trust pursuant to La.R.S.13:5106(B)(3)(a). Fecke v. Bd. of Super. of
La. State Univ, 15-1806 (La. 9/23/16), 217 So.3d 237, mod. on other grounds on
reh’s, 15-1806, 15-807 (la. 10/10/16), 218 So.3d. 1. Neither Chad nor Wendy
oppose this claim.
In Fecke, the plaintiff argued that La.R.S.13:5106(B)(3)(a) does not prevent
the payment of judicial interest on future medical expenses as provided in
La.R.S.13:5112, which provides for judicial interest. The supreme court concluded
that judicial interest is not due on future medical expenses placed in reversionary
trust. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment that
awards judicial interest on Chad’s and Wendy’s awards for future medical
expenses. Additionally, we remand this matter to the trial court for the creation of
two reversionary trusts in accordance with La.R.S.13:5106(B)(3)(a) and order that
Chad’s and Wendy’s future medical expenses be placed in the trusts.
DISPOSITION
5
Louisiana Revised Statute 13:5106(B)(3)(a) provides that the court shall order all
medical care and related benefits incurred subsequent to judgment be paid pursuant to a
reversionary trust established for the benefit of the claimant “[i]n any suit for personal injury
against a political subdivision wherein the court, pursuant to judgment, determines that the
claimant is entitled to medical care and related benefits that may be incurred subsequent to
judgment . . . .”
21
The trial court’s judgment in favor of Chad Langlinais is reversed as to: (1)
the grant of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with regard to his
award for past medical expenses and (2) the award of judicial interest on his future
medical expenses. The judgment is affirmed as to the trial court’s grant of JNOV
for the remaining damage awards; however, the trial court’s awards for past and
present general damages are amended as provided herein. The trial court’s
judgment in favor of Wendy Lejeune is reversed as to the award of judicial interest
but affirmed as to the grant of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict; however the trial court’s awards for past and future general damages are
amended as provided herein. Additionally, the matter is remanded to the trial
court; the trial court is instructed to create two reversionary trusts as provided in
La.R.S.13:5106(B)(3)(a) and to order that Chad’s and Wendy’s future medical
expenses be placed in the trusts.
REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
AS AMENDED, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
22