IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

m 98-31400

Summary Calendar

_______________

ROBERT SCHOEMER and GAIL SCHOEMER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

MICHAEL W. GILL; SAMMY J. KISER; KISER INC;

and HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE CO,

Defendants-Appellees,

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(96-CV-203)

_________________________

November 18, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following a jury trial in this diversity tort

case, the district court denied plaintiffs’

motion for new trial. We affirm.

I.

This action arises from a minor traffic

accident in which defendant Michael Gill

backed his tractor-trailer rig into plaintiff Gail

Schoemer's vehicle. A jury found that Gill's

negligence was a proximate cause of damages

sustained by Schoemer and awarded $2,000

for pain and suffering, nothing for permanent

disability, nothing for past lost wages, $8,000

for past medical expenses, and $15,000 for

future medical expenses. The jury further

found that Gill's negligence was not a cause of

the loss of consortium damages claimed by

Robert Schoemer. Judgment was entered, and

plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial pursuant

to FED. R. CIV. P. 59. The court denied the

motion, and we affirm. 

II.

A district court has sound discretion to

grant or deny new trial motions. Therefore,

we affirm a denial unless the plaintiffmakes “a

clear showing of an absolute absence of

evidence to support the jury’s verdict, thus

indicating that the trial court had abused its 

discretion in refusing to find the jury’s verdict

contrary to the great weight of the evidence.”

Whitehead v. Food Max, Inc., 163 F.3d 265,

 

*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has

determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2

269 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

III.

The plaintiffs fail to make a clear showing

of an absolute absence of evidence to support

the verdict. Their claims of injury, and the

extent thereof, were disputed at trial, and the

jury was entitled to accept certain evidence

presented bythe plaintiffs and certain evidence

presented by the defense. The court’s ruling

adequately articulates the significant evidence

supporting the verdict. 

Plaintiffs cite Pagan v. Shoney’s, Inc.,

931 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1991), for the

proposition that the jury erred as a matter of

law in awarding only $2,000 for past pain and

suffering when it awarded future medical

expenses of $15,000. Pagan holds only that

as a matter of Louisiana law it is error to

award special damages for medical expenses

and lost wages without awarding general

damages. See id. at 337. 

That situation is not present here. Pagan

does not hold that it is error to award future

medical expenses without awarding damages

for permanent disability; common sense

dictates that one might require future medical

treatment, but that that very treatment may

enable one to perform fully without any

disability. Likewise, the patient may suffer no

further pain if the medical treatment is

properlyadministered. Plaintiffs’ objections to

the verdict as to loss of consortium are

likewise without merit. 

AFFIRMED.