Title: Wal-Mart Stores v. Clark

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Wal-Mart Stores v. Clark1998 WY 159969 P.2d 550Case Number: 97-145Decided: 12/18/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

WAL-MART STORES, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

Jerry CLARK, Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal from the District Court, Natrona County, Dan 
Spangler, J.

 

Bruce N. Willoughby of 
Brown, Drew, Massey & Sullivan, Casper, WY., Representing 
Appellant.

Patrick Dixon of Dixon & 
Despain, Casper, WY., Representing Appellee.

 

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, and TAYLOR,* JJ.

 *Chief Justice at time of expedited case conference; 
retired November 2, 1998.

 

LEHMAN, Chief Justice.

 [¶1] Appellee Jerry Clark received a jury verdict in 
his favor for injuries sustained in a fall on Wal-Mart's premises. Appellant 
Wal-Mart Stores now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 
jury's verdict, claiming Clark did not establish the causation element of his 
claim or show a reasonable necessity for three diagnostic tests. Finding the 
jury's determination amply supported by the evidence, we 
affirm.

 

                                             
ISSUES

 

[¶2] Wal-Mart submits the 
following issues for review:

 

I. 
Whether the sufficiency of the evidence presented by appellee failed to meet the 
requisite burden of proof of causation?

 

II. Whether appellee is entitled to recover the cost 
of three diagnostic examinations when the examinations failed to reveal any 
actual injuries?

 

[¶3] In his Statement of the 
Argument, Clark presents these issues:

 

          
1. Did Clark prove that damages resulted from his 
fall?

 

          
2. Are the diagnostic expenses compensable?

 

                                              
FACTS

 

[¶4] The facts of this case 
are not complicated. On January 13, 1994, Clark fell while shopping in the 
Wal-Mart store in Casper, landing on his right hip and shoulder. A Wal-Mart 
employee working in the vicinity came to his aid immediately afterward. At first 
he was unsure if he was hurt, but as he walked through the store he began to 
experience pain and left without completing his errand.  Upon leaving the store, Clark attempted 
to drive to Green River as he had previously planned, but due to pain and nausea 
he returned home after traveling approximately twenty 
miles.

 

[¶5] Clark scheduled an 
appointment with Dr. John Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon, for the next day. 
Upon examination, Dr. Barrasso noted a diffuse tenderness over the hip and 
pelvic area and right shoulder. X-rays showed no fractures, and Dr. Barrasso 
advised Clark to rest at home. Ten days later, Clark returned to Dr. Barrasso 
with complaints of continuing pain. Dr. Barrasso prescribed physical therapy. By 
March 7, 1994, Clark's shoulder had improved, but he continued to experience 
pain in the buttocks area. During the March examination, Dr. Barrasso detected a 
"palpable lump posteriorly over the sciatic nerve," which was still apparent in 
July.

 

[¶6] Dr. Barrasso then 
referred Clark to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Albert Metz. On July 5, 1995, Dr. Metz 
ordered a bone scan to determine if there was any inflammation in the sacroiliac 
joint, but the results were normal and offered no explanation for Clark's 
continuing pain.  Dr. Metz then 
ordered an MRI of Clark's lumbar spine to determine if a lumbar disc problem 
could have been the source of Clark's pain. The MRI results were also 
normal.

 

[¶7] Clark was examined by 
Dr. Barrasso's partner, Dr. Thomas Landon, in August 1996. Dr. Landon ordered an 
MRI to check for a slipped disc. Again, the test results were normal. Dr. 
Landon's notes from his visit with Clark on September 10, 1996, describe Clark 
as "clinically getting worse." About that same time, Dr. Metz ordered a third 
MRI to ascertain whether there was a hematoma in the muscles of the gluteal 
region. The test results, as before, showed no abnormality, and the source of 
Clark's problem remained unexplained.

 

[¶8] At the jury trial of 
Clark's suit against Wal-Mart for personal injuries, Clark submitted the 
deposition testimony of Drs. Barrasso and Metz, as well his own testimony. After 
a two-day trial, the jury found Wal-Mart eighty percent at fault and awarded 
damages to Clark in the amount of $35,000. The damages were reduced by the 
percentage of fault attributed to Clark, and the district court entered its 
Judgment on Verdict in the amount of $28,000, plus costs. Wal-Mart timely 
appeals the judgment.

 

                                       
STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶9] "In reviewing a 
sufficiency-of-the-evidence question, we assume the evidence in favor of the 
successful party to be true, leaving out of consideration entirely the evidence 
in conflict, and assigning every favorable inference to the evidence of the 
successful party that can be reasonably and fairly drawn from it." City of 
Kemmerer v. Wagner, 866 P.2d 1283, 1285 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Crown Cork & 
Seal Co. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 638 P.2d 1272, 1274-75 (Wyo. 1982)). We 
leave to the jury the duty of ascertaining the facts, reconciling conflicts therein, and drawing its own 
inferences if more than one inference is permissible. Id. When the facts permit 
the drawing of more than one inference, then it is for the jury to choose which 
one will be utilized; and, if supported by substantial evidence, the jury's 
choice will be conclusive. Id.

 

                                           
DISCUSSION

 

[¶10] Wal-Mart claims that 
the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish causation between 
Clark's fall and his claimed injuries. In Mariner v. Marsden, 610 P.2d 6, 15 
(Wyo. 1980), and again in Buttrey Food Stores Div. v. Coulson, 620 P.2d 549, 559 
(Wyo. 1980), we held the testimony of the plaintiff may be sufficient, without 
the use of experts, to establish the element of causation between an accident 
and the plaintiff's injuries. As we stated in Mariner, "[i]f the plaintiff, 
bearing the risk of nonpersuasion, chooses to present his claim of past pain 
without medical experts and the fact finder decides to credit his claim, most 
appellate courts perceive no impediment 
to upholding the award." Mariner, 610 P.2d  at 13; see also 1 JACOB STEIN, STEIN 
ON PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES, § 2:8, at 32 n. 7 (2d ed. 1991) and cases cited 
therein. The jury may reasonably infer that an absence of pain prior to the 
accident, and the onset of pain afterwards, is evidence that the accident caused 
the pain.

 

[¶11] Acknowledging this 
precedent, Wal-Mart argues that the case before us can be distinguished because 
here Clark did utilize the testimony of experts, but that testimony conflicted 
with Clark's testimony that his fall caused his pain and suffering. We do not 
agree. It is true that Dr. Barrasso and Dr. Metz were unable to pinpoint a 
specific injury arising from Clark's fall. This testimony, however, can be 
harmonized with Clark's testimony regarding causation. The doctors' testimony 
did not preclude the possibility that Clark's injuries were caused by his fall 
at the Wal-Mart store; they only stated that they could not medically explain 
the connection.  Both physicians 
further testified that not all conditions which produce pain are subject to 
detection by x-ray or other radio-graphic testing, and neither doctor suspected 
Clark of malingering or subterfuge in his complaints of 
pain.

 

[¶12] Clark testified that 
prior to the fall he was physically active and in good health, and that 
immediately afterward he began "hurting." He stated the pain in his shoulder 
from the accident eventually subsided, but that the pain in his hip continued 
through the time of trial. His pain rendered him unable to sleep, drive, or walk 
for any significant period of time, and precluded him from engaging in many of 
his former activities and hobbies. Based on Clark's testimony that the pain did 
not exist prior to his fall at Wal-Mart, but started immediately thereafter and 
became progressively worse, the jury could reasonably choose to believe that the 
fall caused Clark's injuries. 
Consequently, the verdict was adequately supported by the 
evidence.

 

[¶13] Wal-Mart's next 
contention, that Clark did not offer sufficient evidence that the MRI tests 
ordered by Dr. Metz and Dr. Landon were reasonably necessary, is unsupported by 
the record and without merit. A plaintiff has the burden of proving that medical 
expenses for which he seeks recovery were reasonably necessary. See 1 STEIN, 
supra, § 5:1, at 220; Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 
746 F.2d 816, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The fact that the MRI results were negative, 
however, does not mean the tests were not reasonably necessary to treat Clark's 
injury. Clark's doctors stated their reasons for ordering the tests, and why 
they believed the testing to be 
necessary. Wal-Mart did not present any evidence challenging the doctors' course 
of action in attempting to treat Clark's continuing discomfort. As explained 
above, the jury had a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that Clark's fall 
caused his injuries. Likewise, the doctors' uncontroverted testimony provided a 
sufficient basis upon which to award Clark the cost of the MRIs as part of his 
damages.

 

[¶14] The jury's verdict in 
favor of Clark is affirmed in all respects.