## 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 div ersi ty tort

case, the district c o urt denied plaintiffs’

motion for new trial. We affirm.

I.

This action arises from

a minor traffic

acci dent in which defendant Michael Gill

backed his tractor-trailer rig into plaint iff Gail

Schoemer's vehicle. A jury fo und that Gill's negligence was a proximate cause of damages

sust ained by Schoemer and awarded $2,000 for pain and suffering, nothi n g for permanent disabilit y, nothing for past lost wages, $8,000

for past med i cal 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 F ED

. R. C IV

. 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 plaint iff makes “a

clear sh o wing of an absolute absence of

evidence to support th e 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.

, 1 63 F.3d 265, * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has

determined that this opinion sho uld not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.2

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

III.

The plaint iffs fail

t o 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 th e jury was entitled to acc ept certain evidence presented by the plaint iffs and certain evidence presented b y the defense. The court’s ruling adequately articulates the significant evidence supporting the verdict.

Plaint iffs cite Pagan v. Shoney’s, Inc.

, 931 F.2d 334 (5th

Cir. 1991), for the propositio n t hat 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. P agan holds only that

as a matter of Louisiana law it is error to award special damages for medical expenses and lost wages witho ut awarding general damages. See id. at 337.

That situation is not present here. Pagan
does not hol d that i t i s error to award future

medical expenses w it hout awarding damages

for permanent disabili

t y; common sense dictates that one might require future medical

treatment, but that that very treatm ent m

ay

en a ble one to perform fully without any disabilit y. Likewise, the patient may suffer no

further pain if the medical treatment is properly administered. Plaintiffs’ objections to

the verdict as to loss of consortium are

likewise without merit.

AFFIRMED.