## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 37 53

__ __ __ __ __ _

Jo se Lui s Go nz al ez, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 11 Fi le d: Ju ne 18 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Jo se Lui s Gon zal ez fil ed su it u n d e r t h e Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 26 71 -2 68 0, al le gi ng th at em pl oyees of th e Uni te d St at es ne gl ig en tl y c a u se d

s i g ni fic an t de la y in th e pr op er tre at m en t of le g in juri es th at he su ffer ed whi le an
in m at e at th e Fed eral Co rrec ti on al In st it ut io n in Fo rres t Ci ty, Ark an sa s. Afte r a two

da y be nc h tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d t h e go ve rn m en t li ab le an d award ed 1

co m pe ns at or y da m ag es of $8 13 ,00 0. On ap pe al

, th e go ve rn m en t ar g u e s th at th e

The Hon or ab le Su sa n W eb be r Wr i g ht

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.am ou nt of da m ag es is ex ces si ve

. Und er th e de fere nt ia l st an da r d o f r e v i ew th at

ap pl ie s t o a n a ward of d am ag es in a be nc h t ria l, we af fir m

.

I.

On Ju ly 28

, 20 04

, Gon zal ez su ffer ed a n i n ju ry to hi s le ft le g an d an kl e in a

pr is on -s an ct io ne d so ftb al l ga m e whe n an ot he r pl ay er sl id in to se co nd ba se an d st ru ck

Gon zal ez. The ne xt m or ni ng , Gon zal ez se lf- rep or te d to th e pr is on ’s Heal th Serv ic es Dep art m en t fo r m ed ic al tre at m en t of hi s an kl e an d le g. Nur s e G

. Tol iv er to ld

Gon zal ez th at “ walk -in s” were no t al lo wed an d in st ru ct ed hi m to ret ur n th e ne xt da y

. W he n Go nz al ez re tu rn ed on th e m or ni ng of J ul y 30 , Nurs e Tol iv er to ld hi m th at he

co ul d n ot be tre at ed an d t ha t h e m us t m ak e an ap po in tm en t fo r Aug us t 2 , 20 04

.

Gon zal ez ret ur ne d to th e Heal th Serv ic es Dep art m en t on Aug us t 3, 20 04

, an d

Ph y si ci an ’s Ass is ta nt Yve tt e To r o ex am in ed hi m

. Acco rd in g to Toro ’s no te s,
Gon zal ez co m

pl ai ne d of pa in in hi s le ft an kl e “ du e to [a] sp or ts in jury” an d as se ss ed

hi s pa in le ve l at a “ 6,” no ti ng th at th e pa in is “ wor se at ni gh t.” Toro req ue st ed x- rays
of Gon zal ez’s le ft kn ee an d an kl e an d ga ve hi m Mo tri n or Ib u p r of en

. Gon zal ez

req ue st ed cru tc he s or a whe el ch ai r, bu t th e de pa rtment d id no t pr ov id e th em

. G o n z a l e z al so sa w Dr. J. Edn a Pri nc e, th e de pa rtment’s Cl in ic al Dire ct or

. W hi l e
Gon zal ez an d Dr. Pri nc e of fere d di ffer in g acco un ts of th is m eet in g, Dr. Pri nc e di d no t gi ve Gon zal ez a wh eel ch ai r or cru tc he s o r ad di ti on al pa in m ed ic at io n.

On Aug us t 17

, 20 04

, Gon zal ez ret ur ne d to th e Heal th Serv ic es Dep art m en t fo r

x- r a ys

. A t ech ni ci an , h owe ve r, at te m pt ed to pe rfo rm an x- ray o f Gon zal ez’s ch es t,

be cau se Toro ’s tre at m en t or de r m is to o k Gon zal ez fo r a si m il arl y -n am ed fo rm er
in m at e wit h a m al ad y of th e c h e s t

. Upo n di sc ov eri ng th e erro r, th e te ch ni ci an to ld

Gon zal ez t ha t h e wou ld ha ve to res ch ed ul e th e x -ray of h is leg

.

-2

-On Aug us t 26

, 2 0 0 4, th e Heal th Serv ic es Dep art m en t pe rfo rm ed an x- ray of

Gon zal ez’s l eg , whi ch rev eal ed frac tu res of hi s fib ul a an d ank le

. Afte r di sc ov eri ng
th e se rio us ne ss of Gon zal ez’s in jury, Dr. Pri nc e se nt hi m to a lo cal ho sp it al whe re he

was fit te d wi th a su pp or ti ve walk in g b oo t.

The ne xt m or ni ng , Dr. Pri nc e or de re d Gon zal ez to a ho sp it al in Mem ph is

, Ten ne ss ee, whe re a do ct or pe rfo rm ed su rg ery on Gon zal ez’s le ft le g an d an kl e. The

op erat io n— an “ op en red uc ti on an d in te rn al fix at io n of m ed ia l m al le ol ar frac tu re wit h

cl os ed tre at m en t of pr ox im al fib ul ar frac tu re”— req ui red th e pl acement of two sc rews
in Gon zal ez’s le ft an kl e. W it h hi s an kl e in a cas t, Gon zal ez ret ur ne d to th e pr is on th at

ni gh t. Up on hi s retu rn , pr is on of fic ia ls pl aced Gon zal ez i n a Sp eci al Hol di ng Uni t.

Gon zal ez refe rred to th is un it as th e “ ho le ” or “ pu ni sh m en t cel l,” an d cl ai m ed th at he

su ffer ed se rio us pa in wit ho ut ad eq ua te m ed ic al care

. Dr. Pri nc e, ho wev er, st at ed th at

th e SHU was th e ap pr op ria te pl ace f or Gon zal ez u nt il he was m ob il e.

Afte r th ree to fo ur week s in a cas t, an d an ot he r fo ur in a walk in g bo ot
, Gon zal ez was ab le t o pl ace weig ht on hi s an kl e. The Bu reau of Pri so ns la te r

tra ns ferr ed Gon zal ez to an ot he r in st i t u t i o n an d rel eas ed hi m fro m cu st od y on
Nov em be r 14 , 20 08 . Gon zal ez was th en rep at ria te d t o M ex ic o.

Gon zal ez fil ed su it un de r th e Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act, al le gi ng th at th e Heal th

Serv ic es Dep art m en t an d it s st aff br each ed du ti es o f care owe d to Gon zal ez by

refu si ng m ed ic al tre at m en t an d cau si ng un reas on ab le de la y in the dia gnos is an d rep ai r

o f hi s in jury. Gon zal ez al le ge d th at th e de la y in tre at m en t cau se d hi m “ un du e a n d

un ne ces sa ry pa i n an d su ffer in g.” He de m an de d $3 ,00 0,0 00 in co m pe ns at or y
da m ag es

. The de m an d fo r da m ag es so u g h t “at le as t $1 0,0 00 pe r da y ” fo r pa in

ex pe rie nc ed fro m Ju ly 28 th ro ug h Aug us t 3, 20 04

, an d “ at le as t $5 ,00 0 pe r da y ” fo r

pa i n s u f f ered fro m Aug us t 3 th ro ug h Aug us t 26

, 20 04

. Fo r Aug us t 27 th ro ug h Aug us t 30

, 20 04

, th e pe rio d im m ed ia te ly aft er su rg ery, Gon zal ez de m an de d $2 0,0 00

pe r da y

. He so ug ht $2 00 0 pe r m on th f o r t h e r e st of hi s li fet im e, du e to pe rm an en t

-3

-di sa bi li ty an d art hr it ic pa in

. Gon zal ez al so de m an de d $2 ,17 0,0 00 to co m pe ns at e fo r

“ m en ta l an gu is h” su ffer e d be twee n Aug us t 2, 20 04

, an d th e tri al in 20 10

, a la rg er

pr o p o r t i o n of whi ch pr es um ab ly oc cu rred du rin g th e sp an in Aug us t 20 04 whe n
Gon zal ez was de ni ed tre at m en t an d “ de sp ai red of ev er be in g tre at ed .” Pl .’ s Dem an d

fo r Dam ag es un de r th e Fed eral Tort Cla im s Act , at 6

.

At a be nc h t r i a l

, th e di st ric t co ur t he ard te st im on y fro m Gon zal ez’s ex pe rt

wit ne ss , Dr

. J am es Keev er, a li cen se d or th op ed ic su rg eo n. Dr. Keev er ga ve hi s

op in io n, ba se d on a reas on ab le m ed ic al pr ob ab il it y , th at Gon zal ez ha s d e v el op ed

pe rm a n e n t p os t-t rau m at ic art hr it is of th e an kl e. Acco rd in g to Dr. Keev er, th is

co nd it io n was cau se d b y

th e d el ay in tre at m en t an d wi ll wors en wit h t im e.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e go ve rn m en t br each ed it s du ty of care by fai li ng

to tre at Gon zal ez’s an kl e in th e fo ur week s pr io r to th e ta ki ng of x- rays. The co ur t, 2

rel y in g on Dr. Keev er’s test im on y , al so fo un d t ha t Gon zal ez “ su ffer ed a co nt in ui ng
in jury fo ll owi ng hi s su rg ery on Aug us t 27

, 20 04 th at was pr ox im at el y cau se d by th e [g ov ern m en t’s] gr os s ne gl ig en ce.” Reg ard in g Gon zal ez’s pa in an d su ffer in g, th e
di st ric t co ur t o bs erv ed :

[Go nz al ez] st at es th at he ex pe rie nc es pa in on a co ns ta nt ba si s an d th at hi s le ft an kl e wil l no t su pp or t hi s no rm al da y -to -d ay act iv it ie s. He st at es he can ’t pe rfo rm hi s wor k as a m e c h a n i c o r a co nt ract or be cau se bo th job s requ ire pr ol on ge d st an di ng , whi ch he is un ab le to do . [Gon zal ez]

st at es th at he wa l k s i n p a i n an d sl eep s in pa in

, th at he can no lo ng er

Pri or to tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t ad m it te d th at it br each ed th e ap pl ic ab le st an da rd 2
of care by fai li ng to ob ta in an x- ray of Gon zal ez’s an kl e be twee n Aug us t 3, 20 04 an d Aug us t 26

, 20 04

. The di st ric t co ur t, h o w e ve r, fo un d th at th e br each be ga n on th e

mo r n in g of Ju ly 29

, 20 04

, whe n Gon zal ez fir st rep or te d to th e Heal th Serv i c e s Dep art m en t, an d en de d on th e aft ern oo n of Aug us t 26

, 20 04

, whe n x- rays were ta ke n. The co ur t fo un d th at Gon zal ez fai le d to pr ov e th at th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e
st an da rd of c are d ur in g h is po st -s ur ge ry care

.

-4

-pa rti ci pa te in at hl et ic s, an d th at th e le ft an kl e d o e sn ’t ha ve th e sa m e

m ob il it y as th e rig ht an kl e. Fo r ex am pl e, [Go nz al ez] st at es th at whe n he

st um bl es he is un ab le to reco ve r si nc e th e an kl e do es n’t res po nd wit h th e

sa m e refl ex es as hi s ot he r an kl e an d he th us fal ls do wn, an d he st at es
t h at whi le he can go up a la dd er th e pr ob le m is go in g do wn a s t h e l e f t fo ot do es n’t su pp or t hi s bo dy weig ht

. [Go nz al ez] st at es th e an kl e is

swo ll en an d th at he ha s to ke ep m ov in g hi s fo ot fo rward s an d ba ck ward s

so th at so m et hi ng wil l rel eas e fro m th e pa in

. He s t a te s he can ’t walk th at m uc h an d t h at he can no t carr y an y th in g du e to th e pa in

, an d th at whe n h e k ne el s d own he st ru gg le s t o g et up be cau se of t he an kl e.

The di st ric t co ur t award ed Gon zal ez $8 13 ,00 0 in co m pe ns at or y da m ag es

. The

award co ns is te d o f $2 85 ,00 0 fo r Gon zal ez’s p ai n a nd su ffer in g and m en ta l an gu is h

su ffer ed fro m th e m or ni ng of Ju ly 29

, 20 04 un ti l x- rays were ta ke n on Aug us t 26

, 20 04

, an d $5 28 ,00 0 fo r th e “ pa in an d su ffer in g an d m en ta l an gu is h reas on ab ly cert ai n

to be ex pe rie nc ed ” fo r th e rem ai nd er of Gon zal ez’s ex pe ct ed li fe, whi ch th e co ur t

de te rm in ed to be 22 y ears

.

II.

The go ve rn m en t’s so le arg um en t on ap pe al is t h a t t h e am ou nt of da m ag es is

ex ces si ve

. The ap pe al do es no t ch al le ng e th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su pp or t

th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng of pr ox im at e cau sa ti on , an d th e go ve rn m en t do es no t

di sp ut e th e pr oc ed ur al ad eq ua cy of th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact on li ab il it y or
da m ag es

. W e are as ke d on l y t o s e t as id e th e di st ric t co ur t’s ch os en award of
$8 13 ,00 0.

Thi s co ur t ha s reco gn iz ed th at whi le “ th e am ou nt of da m ag es en te red in a no njury cas e is a fin di ng of fact an d th eref or e su bjec t to th e ‘clear ly erro ne ou s’ st an da rd

of rev ie w set for th in Fed . R. Civ . P . 5 2( a), an y ap pl ic at io n o f th at ge ne ral st an da rd

m us t ta ke acco un t of th e sp eci al ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch th at ki nd of fact ua l fin di ng

-5

-is ren de red .” Over to n v. Uni te d St at es , 6 19 F.2 d 12 99 , 1 30 4 (8 th C i r

. 1 9 8 0)

. Thi s

co ur t h as “ lo ng su bs cri be d t o t he vi ew” t ha t ex ces si ve ne ss of a n a ward

is ba si cal ly, an d sh ou ld be

, a m at te r fo r th e tri al co ur t whi ch ha s ha d th e be ne fit of he ari ng th e te st im on y an d of ob se rv in g th e d e mea no r of th e wit ne ss es an d whi c h kn ows th e co m m un it y an d it s st an da rd s; th at th is is a res po ns ib il it y whi ch

, fo r be tt er wor ki ng of th e jud ic ia l pr oc es s an d fo r ot he r se em in gl y ob vi ou s reas on s, is bes t pl aced up on it s sh ou ld ers ;

an d th at we sh al l co nt in ue to co ns id er rev ie w, as we ha ve sa id be fo re,

no t ro ut in el y

an d i n e ve ry cas e, bu t on ly i n t ho se rare si tu at io ns wher e

we are pr es se d to co nc lu de th at th ere is “ pl ai n in jus ti ce” o r a

“ m on st ro us ” o r “ sh oc ki ng ” res ul t.

Id

. (q uo ti ng So lo mon Deh yd ra ti ng Co

. v. Guy to n , 29 4 F.2 d 43 9, 4 4 7- 48 (8 th Ci r.
19 61 )). Thi s ha s be en th e la w f o r d ecad es , y et ne it he r Co ng res s no r th e St at e of

Ark an sa s ha s se en fit to es ta bl is h gu id el in es or li m it s on award s fo r pa in an d

su ffer in g i n t hi s co nt ex t.

The “ sp eci al ci rcu m st an ces ” an d “ ob vi ou s reas on s” co un se li ng in fav or of th is

de fere nt ia l rev ie w in cl ud e th e fact th at “ [t]he re is no pr eci se or ex act m eas ur in g st ic k

fo r cal cu la ti ng ge ne ral da m ag es fo r pa in an d su ffer in g.” Ta ken Ali ve v. Lit za u , 55 1

F.2 d 19 6, 19 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ). “ [A]wards fo r pa in an d s u f f e r i ng are hi gh ly

su bjec ti ve ,” Mor ri ss ey v. We l s h Co

. , 82 1 F.2 d 12 94

, 13 01 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ), an d

“ [d ]epen di ng up on th e fact si tu at io n, th e ran ge be twee n an in ad eq ua te award fo r pa in

an d su ffer in g an d an ex ces si ve award can be en or m ou s.” Id

. Onl y if an award is so

ex tre m e as to fal l ou ts id e th is “ en or m ou s” ran ge of di sc ret io n sh ou ld ap pe ll at e jud ge s

su bs ti tu te th ei r “ hi gh ly su bjec ti ve ” va lu at i on of pa in an d su ffer in g fo r th e di st ric t jud ge ’s c on c l u s i o n

. And th ere is no sp eci al st an da rd of rev ie w f or cas es in vo lv in g

pu bl ic fun ds . The g ov ern m en t i s t reat ed th e sa m e as an y ot he r to rtf

eas or

.

The award of $8 13

, 00 0 in th is cas e is ge ne ro us , b ut we can no t co nc lu de th at

th e de ci si on of th e ex pe rie nc ed di st ric t jud ge was “ m on st ro us ” or “ sh oc ki ng ” or th at

-6

-it res ul te d in a “ pl ai n in jus ti ce.” Th e g o v e rn m en t’s ap pe al is ba se d al m os t en ti rel y

on an effo rt to co m

pa re th e award in th is cas e wit h award s in ot he r pu bl is he d

de ci si on s. W e ha ve ob se rv ed th at “ co m pa ris on s t o o th er jur y

ve rd ic ts are o fte n n ot

pa rti cu la rly he lp fu l i n cl ai m s in vo lv in g no ne co no m ic da m ag es ,” an d th at a di st ric t

co ur t m ay ev en ab us e it s di sc ret io n by rel y in g on su ch co m pa ris on s where th e fact s
of th e in st an t cas e “ are no t eas il y co m pa rab le to th e fact s of ot h e r cas es .” McCa be

v. Par ker

, 60 8 F.3 d 10 68

, 10 80 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. The

fact s of th i s cas e are un us ua l an d di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th e cas es ci te d by th e

go ve rn m en t. The pr of

fere d au th or it ie s do no t pr ov id e us wit h an ad eq ua te fo un da ti on

to co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s award is so ou ts id e th e m ai ns tre am th at we sh ou ld

su bs ti tu te ou r su bjec ti ve ev al ua t i o n o f pa in an d su ffer in g fo r th e di st ric t co ur t’s

as se ss m en t.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

A s t h e res ul t of th e pa ne l m ajor it y ’s de ci si on , th e Uni te d St at es wil l pa y
Gon zal ez $8 13 ,00 0 in da m ag es fo r de la y ed tre at m en t of a br ok en an kl e. The se pu bl ic

fu nd s wil l no t rei m

bu rs e Gon zal ez f

o r m ed ic al ex pe ns es , whi ch th e fed eral

go ve rn m en t a l r e a d y pa id

, no r wag es lo st

. The so le pu rp os e of th e $8 13 ,00 0 is to

co m pe ns at e Gon zal ez fo r th e pa in

, su f f e rin g an d m en ta l an gu is h cau se d by th e

go ve rn m en t’s ne gl ig en t de la y in di ag no si ng hi s pr is on so ftb al l ga m e in juri es

. B e c a u se I be li ev e “ th e award [is ] cl earl y erro ne ou s an d pl ai nl y un jus t,” Hy se l l v

. Io wa Pu b. Se rv . Co., 5 34 F.2d 77 5, 7 87 (8t h C ir. 1 97 6) , I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

The di st ric t co ur t’s award co ns is te d of two pa rts : (1 ) $2 85 ,00 0 to co m pe ns at e
fo r th e pa in

, su ffer in g an d m en ta l an gu is h Gon zal ez ex pe rie nc ed du rin g th e twen tyei gh t an d on e-h al f d a ys hi s in jury rem ai ne d un di ag no se d; an d (2 ) $5 28 ,00 0 to

co m pe ns at e fo r th e po st -tr au mat i c art hr it is pa in

, su ffer in g an d m en ta l an gu is h

-7

-G o n z a l ez is li ke ly to ex pe rie nc e fo r th e rem ai nd er of hi s li fe. Bo th cal cu la ti o n s

tro ub le m e.

The $2 85 ,00 0 award fo r p a s t pa in an d su ffer in g is tro ub le so m e be cau se it is

si gn ifi can tl y m or e th an th e $1 70 ,00 0 Gon zal ez in di cat ed was jus t co m pe ns at io n fo r
th is pe ri o d o f ti m e. In hi s de m an d fo r da m ag es , Gon zal ez de m an de d “ at le as t 3

$1 0,0 00 pe r da y ” in co m

pe ns at io n fo r th e fiv e da y s fro m Ju ly 29 to Aug us t 2, an d “ at

le as t $5 ,00 0 pe r d a y” f

or th e ne xt twen ty-fou r da y s. The di st ric t co ur t no te d th is

va ria nc e in th e a mo u n t s Gon zal ez de m an de d, bu t de ci de d $1 0,0 00 pe r da y was

ap pr op ria te fo r th e en ti re pe rio d “ [g ]ive n th e gr os s ne gl ig en ce of th e Uni te d S t a t e s
. . . and it s ef

fect on [Gon zal ez].”

Bu t th e de gr ee of th e go ve rn m en t’s ne gl ig en ce sh ou ld no t affe ct th e am ou nt of

th e awar d b e c a u s e t he FTCA do es no t pe rm it pu ni ti ve da m ag es

. See 28 U.S.C. § 26 74

. The a ct ua l ef

fect th e g ov ern m en t’s neg li ge nc e ha d on Gon zal ez is th us th e

so le jus ti fic at io n fo r award in g an y d am ag es th ro ug ho ut th e ti m e pe rio d at is su e.
Gon zal ez ad m it te d hi s pa in was at it s m ax im um du rin g th e fiv e da y s i mm e d i at el y
aft er hi s in

jury an d th erea fte r di m in is he d. As Gon zal ez reco gn iz ed in hi s de m an d, th e
da il y award for pa in , su ffer in g a nd m en ta l an gu is h l ik ewis e sh ou ld di m in is h.

As th e res ul t of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on , Gon zal ez rece iv ed $1 15 ,00 0 m or e
th an he su gg es te d was reaso na bl e, a 67 % in crea se

. If the re exi st s a jus ti fic at io n for

I reco gn iz e Gon zal ez de m an de d an ad di ti on al $2 ,17 0,0 00 fo r t h e a n c il la ry 3

m en ta l an gu is h he cl ai m ed he su ffer ed

. The di st ric t co ur t pr es um ab ly fo un d li tt le or

no m eri t in th is as pe ct of Gon zal ez’s req ue st be cau se th e di st r i ct co ur t di d no t

m en ti on th is de m an d no r ci te it whe n an no un ci ng t h e a w a r d

. In st ead

, th e di st ric t

co ur t qu o t e d an d ci te d Gon zal ez’s m or e sp eci fic de m an d fo r th e ph y si cal pa in

,
su ffer i n g an d m en ta l an gu is h li nk ed to th e ti m e pe rio d at is su e. My fo cu s is up on th es e sp eci fic de m an ds

, in whi ch Gon zal ez ide nt ifi ed am ou nt s to ta li ng $1 70 ,00 0 as

“ jus t co m pe ns at io n.”

-8

-su ch a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t art ic ul at e th at jus ti fic at io n as req ui red by Fed

.

R. Ci v. P. 52 (a)( 1)

. See Kin g v. Uni te d St at es , 55 3 F.3 d 11 56

, 11 61 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng Ru le 52 (a)( 1) req ui res th e di st ric t co ur t to pr ov id e su ffi ci en t f a c t ua l

fin di ng s fo r ou r co ur t to en ga ge in m ean in gf ul rev ie w); Arpi n v. Uni te d Stat es , 52 1

F.3 d 76 9, 77 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (al so ex pl ai ni ng un de r Ru le 52 (a)( 1)

, th e di st ric t co ur t

m us t in di cat e it s reas on in g pr oc es s co nn ect in g th e ev id en ce to th e am ou nt award ed ).

I wou ld no t af

fir m th is un jus ti fie d p or ti on of t he award

.

Eve n m or e tro ub li ng is th e award of $5 28 ,00 0 fo r Gon zal ez’s fu tu re pa in an d

su ffer in g, whi ch pu rp or ts to co m pe ns a t e G o n z a le z $2 ,00 0 each m on th fo r th e

rem ai nd er of hi s li fe, es ti m at ed at twen ty-two y ears

. The di st ric t co ur t reas on ed 4

$2 ,00 0 pe r m on th was jus ti fie d “ [c]on si de rin g th e na tu re, ex te nt
, an d pe rm an en cy of
[Go nz al ez’s] in

jury, an d th e pa in an d su ffer in g an d m en ta l an gu is h reas on ab ly cert ai n

to be ex pe rie nc ed in th e fu tu re.” Oth er th an th i s c o n c l us or y st at em en t, th e di st ric t

co ur t pr ov id es no ex pl an a t i o n or de sc rip ti on of wh at pa in an d su ffer in g an d wh at

m en ta l an gu is h Gon zal ez i s li ke ly to ex pe rie nc e or wh y $2 ,00 0 pe r m on th is an

ap pr op ria te am ou nt

. The figure

, ta ke n fro m Gon zal ez’s de m an d fo r da m ag es , ap pe ars

to be “ pl uc ke d ou t of th e ai r, an d

. . . can no t be s q u a r e d w i t h t h e du ty of reas on ed

, art ic ul at e ad

jud ic at io n i m

po se d b y Ru le 52 (a).” Arpi n, 5 21 F.3d at 7 76

.

The di st ric t co ur t al so fai le d to di st in gu is h th e fu tu re pa in

, su ffer in g an d m en ta l

an gu i s h Gon zal ez is li ke ly to ex pe rie nc e as th e res ul t of th e go ve rn m en t’s de la y in

tre at m en t from

an y pa in , su ffer in g a nd m en ta l an gu is h cau se d by th e frac tu re its el f,

fo r whi ch th e g ov ern m en t bear s no res po ns ib il it y

. I can no t d et erm in e if th e d is tri ct

co ur t di st in gu is he d be twee n th e two cau se s

. W as al l of Gon zal ez’s fu tu re pa in

,

In al l act ua li ty, th e lu mp -s um award wil l co m pe ns at e Gon zal ez m or e th an 4 $2 ,00 0 pe r m on th gi ve n th e in crea se d va lu e of th e a w a r d ov er ti m e if Gon zal ez
pr ud en tl y in ve st s t he m on ey

.

-9

-su ffer in g an d m en ta l an gu is h rel at ed to po st -tr au m at ic art hr it is cau se d by t he de la y

in tre at m en t? Did th e fra ct ur e it se lf c au se an y of t hi s fu tu re s uf

feri ng ?

Fi na ll y , I do no t be li ev e th e ev id en ce su pp or ts a $5 28 ,00 0 award

. Asi de fro m
Go n z a le z’s su bjec ti ve co m pl ai nt s m ad e fo r th is li ti ga ti on , t he on ly ev id en ce I ha ve
fo un d s u p po rti ng th e award are th e affi da vi ts an d te st im on y of Dr. Ja m es Keev er,
who ne ve r tre at ed Gon zal ez, or e v e n met Gon zal ez, an d who se hypo th et ic al

ob se rv at io ns on th e su bjec t— fo rme d be fo re se ei ng Gon zal ez’s de po si ti on —wer e

ge ne ral an d n on -s pe ci fic to Gon zal ez.

It is qu es ti on ab le w h e t h e r su ch sp ars e ev id en ce can su pp or t su ch a ge ne ro us
award un de r Ark an sa s la w. See McG r a w v

. J o n es , 2 38 S.W .3d 15 , 2 1 (Ark . 2 00 6) (“ Evi de nc e of fu tu re pa in an d su ffer in g an d pe rm an en t di sa bi li ty m us t be es ta bl is he d

wit h reas on ab le cert ai nt y an d m us t no t be le ft up to sp ecu la ti on or co njec tu re.”)

. I am

co nv in ced $5 28 ,00 0 is un su pp or te d on th is reco rd an d ov ercom pe nsat es Gon zal ez fo r

an y fu tu re pa in

, su ffer in g or m en ta l an gu is h he m ig ht ex pe rie nc e as th e res ul t of po st

tra um at ic art hr it is of hi s an kl e. See ge ne ral ly Tho m ps on v. Am erad a Hes s Co rp ., No.

96 -3 26 5, 19 98 W L 27 42 60

, at *7 -8 (E.D. La. May 26

, 19 98 ) (rem it ti ng a jury award

of $6 00 ,00 0 in no n- eco no m ic da m ag es to $3 00 ,00 0 fo r a pl ai nt iff who su ffer ed pa in

an d su ffer in g cau se d by a frac tu red ti bi a sh aft an d a fr a c t u r e d k n ee joi nt wit h

s u b s e q u e nt su rg ery an d co m pl ic at io ns rel at ed to th e in juri es , aft er no t fin di ng an y

“ si m il ar i nju rie s wh ere t he ge ne ral da m ag es ev en co m e cl os e to $6 00 ,00 0” ).

F or th es e reas on s, I wou ld no t affi rm th e $8 13 ,00 0 award , wh ic h I be li ev e i s

a “s h o c k i n g ” win df

al l to Gon zal ez an d res ul ts in a “ pl ai n in jus ti ce” to th e Uni te d

St at es tax pa y ers . I wou ld va cat e Gon zal ez’s d am ag e award an d rem an d t he cas e to

th e d is tri ct co ur t t o e nt er a n ew jud gm en t. See Hy se ll , 53 4 F .2d at 7 87 -8 8.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-