### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Se pte mb er

15, 200 8 S es sio n BARBARA STRI CKLAN a nd hus ba nd, REED ST RICKL AN, v. JO HNNY C. PA TTER SON
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forMonroe C ounty No. V02342H Hon. John B. Hagler, Circ uit Jud ge

No. E2008-00203-COA- R3-CV - FILED NOVEMBER 4, 2008

In this action for da mages for persona l injuries sustained i n an automobile ac cident, the jury r eturne d verdic ts for the plaintiffs. De fenda nt ha s appea led and on appea l raises the issues of whether there was suff icient and c ompetent proof to support plaintiff’s claim for medic al expe nses; whether the Cou rt e rr e d in a llo wi ng pla int if f' s tr e a tin g p hy sic ia n to of fe r a n op ini on on pe rm a ne nt i mpa ir me nt, and he que stioned whether the jury verdic t was contra ry to the "weight of e vidence ". On appea l, we
a ff ir m th e Ju dg me nt o f the Tr ia l Co urt.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ff

ir me d.

H ER S CHEL P ICK EN S F R ANKS , P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which C H A RL ES D. S US ANO , J R ., J., and D. M I CHAEL S W I NEY , J., joined.

Toby R. Carpenter , Knoxville, Tenne ssee, f or appe llant, Johnny C. P atterson. John Carson, III ., Madisonville, Tenne s see, f or appe llees, Barba

ra Stricklan a nd husband, Reed Stricklan.

OP IN ION

Plaintiffs Bar

bara and Ree d Stricklan broug ht this a ct i o n to rec over da mag es for injuries sustained by

Ms. Stricklan in a motor vehicle a ccide nt with defenda nt, J ohnny

C. Patterson, which occ urre d on Dec ember 31, 2001.-2- At the pleadingstag e, Ms. Stricklan’s initial Answer s to I nterrog atories, showed that she cla imed that her ne ck and le ft should er w ere injured in the ac cident, and that she had a prior history of five r uptured discs in her

neck. S h e re s p o nded to Requests to Admit propounded by Def endant in J uly 2006 wher ein s he admitt ed that in late Decembe r 2003 she sl ipped and fell and
s ustained an injury

to her ne ck for

which she obta ined medica l treatment. Dr . J oel Rag land, a
neurosur g eon, was Ms. Stricklan’s tre ating phy sician in conne ction with the injuries she sustained in the ac ci d en t

. I n his deposition he testified reg ardingtwo such 1994 surg erie s based on he r medical r ecor ds. He stated that in 1994 his partner, Dr . Sander s , h ad p erf ormed a cer vical fusion from the third ve rtebra e to the six th vertebr ae a nd that she had done well following the proc edure
un til De c e mbe r 20 01 wh e n the a c c ide nt oc c ur re d. Dr

. Ra g land te sti fi e d that he fi rst s aw Ms. Stricklan in his office on Septe mber 27, 2002 a nd she g ave a

history of nec k pain since a

Dec ember 31, 2001 motor vehicle a ccide nt. She also g ave a history of the two spinal fusions in 1994 and stated that she had not had problems wit h her neck between 1994 and the accide nt in 2001. She stated that since the 2001 a ccide nt she had pa in on the left si de of her neck, down into her shoulder blade a nd
ou t to the joi nt p art

of he r sh ou lde r. She did no t have numbn e ss in he r ha nd s bu t sh e ha d d if

fi c ult y turning her he ad. Dr. Rag land’s diag nosis was ce rvica l strain as in a whiplash- ty pe injury causing soft tissue injury and continued pain. He rec ommended home tra ction thera py as we ll as phy sical thera py . He sa

w her in his office a g ain on Octobe r 10, 2002 and she told him t hat the tra ction thera py only delivere d temporar

y relie f. He or dere d muscle re laxants and a my elog ram. The my elog ram wa s mildl y

abnorma l but surge ry

was not in dicated. O n November 15, 2002 she prese nt ed wi t h co n tinued left side nec k pain that ra diated out to her shoulder are a. Dr . Rag land explained that the pain in the shoulder a rea was re lated to the neck pain. He r ecommende d epidura l ste ro id i nje c tio ns . A t th a t po int his imp re ssi on

wa s a s f oll ow s: My fee ling was that she had more of a soft tissue musculoskeletal ty pe of pa in due t o t h e w h i p l a s h i n

j u r y a s o p p o s e d

t o w h a tI c a l l a

n e u r o p a t h i c t y

p e o f p r o b l e m
. In other wor ds, I didn’t fee l that she had a pinched nerve causingher pa in as much as a lig ament, muscle a

nd joint ty

pe of a problem ca

use the pa in.
The e pidural treatment did not bring a ny signific ant re lief and in mid-J anuar y 2003 Dr. Rag land rele ased Ms. Stricklan f

rom his car e as he had done a s much for he r as he could.
Ms. Strickla

n returne d to D r. Rag land’s office in O ctober 2003 wit h co n t i n u ed
c omp la int s of ne c k pa in an d a lso c omp la int s o f l e ft sh ou lde r p a in. He state d th a t sh e ha d mo re pa in with motion of the shoulder than he had noted before. Fur ther, he ref

err ed her to Dr. Holloway , an orthopedist, for a

n evaluation of her shoulder pain. She re turned to see Dr. Rag land on Dec ember 12, 2003 and st ill complained of neck pain. Dr. Holloway had ordered a n MRI that showed a

torn rotator cuff on the left side. I n J anuar y 2004 Dr. Rag land saw Ms. Strickla n for the last time. She
c omp la ine d of ne c k pa in and he sti ll re la te d it to a wh ipl a shty

pe inj ur y to t he c e rv ic a l sp ine c a

us e by the Dec ember

2001 motor vehicle a ccide nt. At that point, he did not think he could do any thing more medic ally

for he r. At trial, Ms. Stricklan in her testimony , stated she was unaware of whe n she tore he rOn Octobe r 4, 2003, the Stricklans were running cattle to the ba rn whe n Ms. Stricklan was 1 kn oc ke d o ve r a ndste pp e d o n b y a c ow
. She wa s take n to the e me rg e nc y ro om a nddia gn os e d w ith a rupture d ligament in her lef t knee. At tria l, defe ndant introduce d emer gency r oom rec ords from April 4, 2002 that showed Ms. Stricklan’s c omplaints were “ L-shoulder, L -l eg p ai n ” and tha t the diagnosis was “c ontusion L-leg.”
-3- ro ta tor c uf f w hic h w a s d ia g no se d b y Dr . H oll ow ay . Sh e state d s he wa s o nly a sk ingthe ju ry

to c omp e ns a te he r fo r t

he inj ur ie s to he r n e c k a

nd no t th e inj ur ie s to he r l e ft sh ou lde r a sso c ia te d w ith
a torn rotator cuff

. She was shown an medical expense summary exhibi t, and she testified that none of the listed expenses per tained to the cow

incident or to Dr. Hollowa y ’s diag nosis and tre atment 1 of the torn r otator cuf

f.

Dr . Ra g land

g a ve his op ini on a s to the c a us e of Ms. Str ic kla

n’ s ne c k in

jur y and a s to wh e the r t he me dic a l e xpe ns e s a sso c ia te d w iththe ne c k in jur y we re re a so na

ble and me dic a lly
nece ssary and re lated to the De cembe r 31, 2001 ac cident. His opinion was off ere d with the cave at that he was unable to e x press an opinion r eg arding Ms. Strickla n’s left shoulder

injury . Dr. Rag land te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Q. Wer e the inj ur ie s th a t y ou saw that Ms . Stri c kla

n s uf fe rs fr om c on sis te nt w ith those of a person who was invol ved in a mot or vehicle rea r-e nd collision on Dec ember

31, 2001 . . . .
A. Yes. The y

sure c ould be. Q. Wou ld you

e xpe c t th e se pa

rt ic ula r i njuries to he r n e c k to sh or te n M s. S t r i c k l an ’ s l i f

e e x p e c t an c y?
A. Iwould not think so. Q. . . . [W ]oul d her ne ck now be more s usceptible to injury as a r esult of any other ty pe of tra uma?
A. . . . The pa in and irritability that is there may

make it more se nsitive to inj ury as in ca using more pain, but I don’t think it makes he r more likely to have a str uc tur a l in jur y of he r n e c k b y

the fa c t th a t sh e ha s th e se sy mpt oms
. Q. I s her c ondition li kely to worsen a s she g ets older?
A. No. I

don’t know that it’s likely to g et better either, but I

can’ t say within a
rea sonable de g ree of medica l cer tainty that it’s more likely to worsen or

g et better. . . . Q. I s she likely

to have more pain as she g ets older . . . ?-4- A. Icannot r eally

say that she’s likely

to have more pain as time g oes by

. . . .

. . . Q. Ar e y ou

awa re of any medic a l tr e a tme nt a va ila ble to M s. Str ic kla

n at th is time that would benef

it her condition?
A. No. Q. Do y ou have a

n o p i n i o n as to whether

she will continue to have pain and limit ations beca

use of the injurie s suffer ed on 12/31/01?
A. Ie xpe c t th a t sh e wi ll, bu t a g a in, pr e dic tin g that is ve ry dif fi c ult

. Q. Do y ou

have an o pin ion

wi thi n a re a so na ble de g re e of

me dic a l c e rt a int

y a s to whether she will need further treatment in the f uture a s a re sult of the injuries she suffe red on D ece mber 31, 2001?
A. She may

ne e d s ome me dic a tio n in te rm itt e ntl y fo r s y mpt om c on tr ol. Th a t is the most Ican think of at this poi nt that she may need. Q

. Do y ou have ano p in io n
. . . w h e th e r M s
. Str ic k la

nw il l d e v e lo p either arthritis or deg ener ative cha ng es as a result . . . of these injuries . . . ?
A. Icannot sa

y that within a rea sonable de g ree of medica l cer tainty

. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, Dr. Ra g land state d M s. Str ic kla

n g a ve a his tor y to h im i n 2002, afte r t he accident, of doing “fa irly well” and that she wa s “without any problems” f

ollowing the 19 94 surg e ri e s. De fe ns e c ouns e l poin te d o ut t hat Ms . Stri c kla

n h a d c omp la ine d o f n e c k p a in t o her pr imary

car e phy sician in 1999. Dr. Rag land re sponded that he w as unaw are of a c omplaint of neck pa in in 1999, but it would not surprise him. Def ense c ounsel place d in the rec ord, Dr. Smith’s note dated O ctober

30, 2001 which states “ [t ]hree month follow-up; p ai n in both shoulders” and

“ [b]on e s are so re in arm ”

. Dr

. Smith wa s no t c a lle d a s a wi tne ss to te sti fy re gardi ng hi s note s. Def ense c ounsel also re ad into the re cord Par kwest Emer g ency R o o m rec ords of Apr il 4, 2002 reg ardingMs. Stricklan’s being “trampled” b y a co w: “Tra mpled by cow, lef t shoulder, left leg pain”. Dr. Rag land ag ree d under c ross-examination that he had not seen Ms. Strickla n the three y ear s prior to trial and that he had not included an evaluation of her perma nent impairment due to neck p ai n i n h i s re cord. He conc eded that he had not conside red w hether she had a perma nent impairment until the m orning of t rial. He stated t hat between the time he first evaluated he r in 2002 and his last visit wit h her in J anuar y 2004 he “would have plenty of time to determine w hether she had any - - wa s having any

improvement in her c ondition or whether she was stable in he r condition-5-

with her c omplaints . . . .”

The jury awa

rded Ms. Strickla

n $65,000.00 damag es, and Mr. Stricklan $10,000.00 fo r l os s o r c on so rt ium . D e fe nd ant h a s a pp e a le d a nd ra ise s th e se iss ue s:
A. Whe the r p la int if

f o ff e re d s uf fi c ie nt a nd c omp e te nt pr oo f to s up po rt he r c la im fo r m e dic a l e xpe ns e s?

B. Whether the Tr ial Court erre d when it a l l o we d t h e testimony of Dr. Joel Ra g land re g ard ingB arb ara

Str ic kla n’ s p e rm ane nt i mpa ir

me nt?
C. Whether the ve rdict of the jur y was c ontrary

to the weig ht of the evide nce?

The standard of revie w of a jury verdic t is well s ettled t hat findi ng s of fa ct by a jury in c ivi l a c tio ns wi ll b e se t a sid e on ly if the re is no ma te ri a l e vid e nc e to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t. T e nn . R. App. P. 13(d). The Supre me Court, in W ha le yv . P e rk ins , 197 S.W .3d 665 (Tenn.2006) , addre ssed the a pp ro a c h a pp e lla te c ourt s sh ou ld t a ke wh e n de te rm ini ng wh e the r the re is ma te ri a l e vid e nc e to su pp or t a jur y ve rd ic t a s f

oll ow s:
[A]n a pp e llate c ou

rt sh a ll : (1) take the strong est leg itimate vie w of all the evidenc e in favo r of the ve rd ic t; (2 ) as su me the tr uth of a ll ev ide nc e that supp or ts the ve rd ic t; (3 ) a l l o w a l l r e a s o n a

b l e i n f e r e n c e s t o s u s t a i n t h e v e r d i c t ; an d ( 4 ) d i s c a rd a ll counter v a il in g e v id e n c e
. A p p e ll a te c o u rts s h a ll n e it h e r r e w e ig h th e e v id e n c e nor decide wher e the pr eponder ance of t h e evidence lies. I f the re cord c ontains “any
ma te ri a l e vid e nc e to s up po rt the ve rd ic t, t

he jur y ' s f ind ing s mu st b e a ff

ir me d; i f i t wer e other

wise, the parties would be deprive d of their constitutional rig ht to trial by jury .”

W haley, at 671.

Whether the evidenc e is material does not r elate to the weig ht of the evide nce. Kelley v. Johns , 96 S.W .3d 189, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App.2002). “Rather , it involves the relationship betwee n the proposition that the evidenc e is of fer ed to pr ove and the issues in the case .” Id. On appe al, the Court’s task is “to deter

mine whether

the re cord c o n t ai n s any

evidenc e re lating to the matters at i s s u e w h i ch , wh en re v i ew edi n a l i gh tm o s tfa v o rab l e t o t h e p re v ai l i n g p ar t y , s u p p o rt s t h e j u ry 's verdic t.” Id. at 195.

Th e a dmi ssi bil ity

of e xpe rt te sti mony

is w ith in the d isc re tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt

. W aters v. Coke r , No

. M 2 0 0 7 -0 1 8 6 7 -C OA -R M -C V, 2 0 0 8 W L4 0 7 2 1 0 4 at * 6 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p
. Au g. 28, 2008). Unde r the a

buse of discretion standard, a trial court' s ruling “will be upheld so long as rea s o n ab le minds can disag ree as to the propr iety of the de cision made.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42Plaintiff did not claim that the rotator cuf f injury was a ssociated with the a ccide nt. In fac t 2 she af firmatively stated tha t she did not know the source of that injury.
-6- S.W. 3d 82 , 85 (T e nn .2 00 1) . The a bu se of dis c re tio n s tand ard

do e s n ot p e rm it the a

pp e llate c ourt

to substitut e its judgme nt for that of the trial court. Id.

T h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a r e r e v i e w e d u n d e r a p u r e l y de novo standard with no presumption of corr ectne ss. Tay lor v . F e ze ll , 158 S.W .3d 352, 357 (Tenn. 2005). A plaintiff is require d to present c ompetent proof r eg ardingthe re as o n ablene ss and n e c essity of cla imed medical expenses. J

ac k so n v . S un k e nb e rg , E1999 -2 2 7 1 -C OA-R3-CV, 20 00 WL66 04 5 at * 2 (T e nn . Ct

. App. J an. 27, 2000). An injured plaintiff c an re cover for r easona

ble and ne cessa

ry medical e x penses a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h t h e t r e a t m e n to f

t h e i n j u r y. Howeve r, i n order to rec over for t hese e x penses, e x pert opinion must be off

ere d reg ardingthe re asonable ness and necessity of t he phy sician’s ser vices a nd
c h ar g e s
. See, Ro be rts v . D av is , No. M2000-01974-COA- R3-CV, 2001 WL 921903 at * 4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Aug . 7, 2001).

Def endant c ontends plaintiffs did not offer competent e vidence to suppor t a claim for Ms. Str ic kla

n’ s me dic a l e xpe ns e s, and po int s to the fa c t th a t D r. Joel Ra g lan d tes ti fi ed in his de po sit ion

that Ms . Stri c kla

n h a d $ 18 ,4 03 .6 1 of me dic a l expe ns e s and a t tria l couns e l f or pla int if fs ’ produce d a “Medic al Ex pense Summary ” that showed a total of $14, 335.61 for M s
. S t ri ck l an’s medical ex penses. Dr. Ragland, however , did not testify that all of the medic al expenses included in t he $1 8, 40 3. 61 fi g ur e we re a sso c ia te d w ithMs. Str ic kla n’ s in jur ie s c a us e d b y the mot or

ve hic le
a c c ide nt. I n f

a c t he we nt t

hr ou g h th e bil ls atta c he d to the su mma ry of me dic a l bil ls pr e se nte d at hi s deposition and discussed in detail the e x penses that we re not c onnecte d to the i njury cause d by the
a c c i d e n t , an d

s t a t e d t h a tt h e b i l l s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h M s
. S t r i c k l an ’ s t o r n r o t a t o r c u f f s h o u l d e r i n j u r y, which wa s treate d by

Dr. Ho l l o wa y , were not related to the ac cident. Dr. Hollowa y ’s bills are 2 identified as a

re the bills for the unrela t ed ra diology studies refe renc ed by

Dr. Rag land. Dr. Rag land’s testimony

forms the bas i s for a

nd supports the summary of medica l expenses of $14,335.61 prese nted to the jury

.

Under the abuse of discre tion standard, the Trial Court J udg e did not err by allowing into evidence the ex pert testim ony of Dr. Ra g land and the E x hibit reg ardingthe medica l expenses of Ms. Stricklan. We find this issue to be without merit.

The a buse of discr etion standard is a lso applicable to de fenda nt’s contention that the Tr ia l Co ur

t sh ou ld n ot h a ve a dmi tte d D r. Ra g land ’s te sti mony re g ard inghis a sse ssm e nt o f M s. Stricklan’s per

manent impairment.

Def endan t c o n te n d s th a t D r
. Ra g la n d w a s o f th e o p in io n th a t M s
. Str ic k la n had a-7-

perma nent impairment of thre e per cent “as a re sult of injuries from the ac cident with Mr. Patterson.” F ur the r, de fe nd ant c on te nd s th a t D r. Ra g land did no t have a su ff ic ie nt ba sis up on

wh ic h to fo rm

thi s opinion because the per

manent impairment opi nion does not appea r in Dr. Rag land’s re cords; he
ne ve r e xamined Ms. Str ic kla n to de te rm ine the de g re e of imp a ir me nt; and

he ha d n ot s e e n M s. Stricklan in three y ear s at the time he made the assessmen t

. Dr

. R agland’s testimony , howeve r, pr ov ide s th a t ba se d o n M s. Str ic kla n’ s h ist or y a nd the stu die s h e ha d p e rf

or me d h e wa s a

ble to diag nose her

as havinga “whiplash ty

pe inj ury to the cervica l spine resulting in a soft tissue injury of the str uc tur e of the ne c k” , an d as to the a ssi g nme nt of a pe rm ane nt i mpa ir

me nt o f t hr e e pe rc e nt, he te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s:
Q. Do y ou

have an o pin ion

wi thi n a re a so na ble de g re e of

me dic a l c e rt a int

y a s to wh e t h e r M s
. S t r i c k lan s uf

fe re d a ny pe rm ane nt p hy sic a l im

pa ir me nt a s a re su lt of the injuries she r ece ived on Dec ember 31, 2001?

A. Ag ain, that is somewhat of a difficult question to answer beca use she’ s had neck surg ery in the past, rathe r extensive neck sur g ery in the past, and so, y ou know, I do think she has continu ed p ai n
. She has an injury related to the
a c c ide nt, and , the re fo re , it wo uld be re a so na ble to co ns ide r he r to h a ve so me impairment related to that injury perta ining to her

neck.

F ig uring that w iththe c ur re nt e dit ion

of the AM A G uid e s is qu ite dif fi c ult beca use of the w ay

they assess impairment for cer vical fusions. I

think that in he r s itu a tio n it

wo uld be mos t a

pp ro pr ia te to c on sid e r t o h a ve so me impairment related to the pain associated with that which I estimate at be ing three perc ent of the w hole per son.

We find no abuse of

discretion in admitting the doc tor’s testimony on this iss ue, and it was appropr iate for

the fa ct finder

to consider.

Def endant f urther a rg ues that the doc tor had not seen Ms. Stricklan in thre e y ear s and
wa s una wa re of he r p re se nt c on dit ion , D r. Ra g land a dd re sse d th is i ssu e on

c ro ss e xami natio n:

A. Iwas a sked this morning to c on s i d er if there was a n impairment for he r cer vical condition. To dete rmine an impairment require s the condition to be stable and w ithout som e expectation that it’s g oing to c hang e i n the nea r futur e , a nd the fa c t th a t sh e wa s, ho w m any , thre e y e ars ?

Q. Ibe lie ve it’ s b e e n a bo ut t hr e e y e ars sin c e y ou

have se e n h e r; is that r ig ht?-8- A. Well, about three y ea rs fr o m her injury - - no two y ear s from her injury , I g ue ss, to the tim e that I la st sa w he r, mor e tha

n a y e ar a t le a st, the n th e last time Isaw he r in J anuar

y 2004 would have be en plenty of time to determine whether she had a

ny - - wa s having any

improvement in her c ondition or whether she wa s stable in her c ondition with her complaints . . . .

Dr. Rag land’s testimony

addre ssed the fa ct that in his opinion he had sufficie nt information to addre ss the issue of perma nent impairment and the trial judg e allowe d this evidence , observing , “I

think y our objec tion goe s more to the we ight of that than to prec luding testim ony .” We find no abuse of

discretion by

the Trial Court in allowing Dr. Rag land’s t es timony to be considere d by

the jury

.

F ina lly , d e fe nd ant c on te nd s th e jur y ’s ve rd ic t in

fa vo r o f p la int if

fs wa s c on tr a ry

to the weig ht of the evidence and that the Trial Court er red in pe rfor

ming its duty

as the thirtee nth juror wh e n it de nie d d e fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n f or a Ne w T ri a l.
When a motion for new trial asser ts that the jury ' s verdic t w as contra ry to the weig ht of the e vidence , it becomes the duty of the Tr ial Court to weig h the evidence and deter mine whether it pr eponder ates a g ainst the verdic t, and if so, to g rant a new tria l. Jame

s E. Strates Shows, Inc. v. Jakobik , 554 S.W .2d 613, 615 (Tenn.1977)

. The role of t he trial court whe n revie wing the weig ht of the e vidence has of

t en b ee n re fe rr ed to as that of a “thirtee nth juror.” The trial judg e, as the thirteenth juror, is not obligated to provide a ny rea sons for his action, any more than the jury

is bound to do so. J

ak ob ik, 554 S.W .2d at 615. As t he Tria l Court’s Order denying the defe ndant’s Motion f o r a N e w T r ia l p r o v id e s : “ [t ]h e Co u rt f o u n d th e w e ig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e s u

p p o rte d an d th e Court specific ally

approve d the ver dict of the jury awa rded to both Mr. a

nd Mrs. Stricklan.” The rec ord demonstrates the Trial Judge pr operly acte d in his role as t h e t h i rt eenth juror , g iving r ise to the pr e su mpt ion

that he we ig he d the e vid e nc e and a de qu a te ly

pe rf or me d h is f un c tio n a s th e thi rt e e nth juror. See, H

olden v. Rannic k, 682 S.W .2d 903, 906 (Tenn. 1984)

. Our re view is limit ed to a de termination of whe ther ther e is materia l evidenc e in the
rec ord to support the jury ’s awa rd to the Stricklans, g iving f ull faith and credit to all of the e vidence that tends to support the amount . Poole v. Kroger Co., 604 S.W .2d 52, 54 (Tenn. 1980). W e ar e require d to take the strong est leg itimate view of a ll the evidence , including a ll reasona ble infer ence s the re fr om, to s us ta in t

he ve rd ic t; t o a ssume the tr uth of a ll the e vid e nc e that su

pp or ts i t; a nd to discard a ll evidence to the contra ry
. Id. We d o n ot w e ig h th e e vid e nc e , n or de te rm ine the c re dib ili ty of the witnesse s. Id. ; Ki n n a rd v

. Tay lor , 3 9 S

. W

. 3d 120, 122 (Tenn. Ct. App.2000). Under our standard of

revie w of the jury verdic t, there is ample material evidenc e to support the jury ’s awa rd to the plaintiffs.

I n sum, the Trial Court did not err in pe rmitting the testim o n y of Dr. Ra g land
re g ard ingthe me dic a l e xpe ns e s and pe rm ane nt d isa

bil ity of the pla int if

f, and did no t e rr wh e n it denied the motion for new trial and there i s materia l evidenc e in the re cord that supports the jury ’s-9-

verdic t.
We a ff

ir m th e J ud gment o f t

he Tr ia l Co ur

t and re mand . T he c os t of

the a pp e a l is assessed to the de fenda

nt, J ohnny

C. Patterson,

______________________________

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.