I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - CT - 0 0 0 8 9 - S CT HONDA DOWNSAN

D R OB ER T

DOWNS
v. PET ER L . ACKER M

AN ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 21/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . ROBER T P . KREBS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ACKSON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : KE NNE T H M . AL T M AN M I CH AE L S CO T T BI S HOP ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: H. BEN J AM I N M ULLEN NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDGMENT O F T H E JA C K S O N C O U N T Y C IR C U IT CO UR T I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A F F I RMED - 06/ 20/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . H o n d a D o w n s su e d D r. P e ter A c k e rm a n fo r in ju rie s su sta in e d in a m o to r- v e h ic le col l i s i on w hen D r . A ckerm an r ear - ended D ow ns . D r . A ckerm an admi t t ed l i abi l i ty, and the
cas e w entt o tr i al o n dam ages . T he j ury aw ar ded D ow ns $20, 000; the tr i al courtdeni ed D o w n s’s m o tio n fo r a n a d d itu r o r a n e w tr ia l. D o w n s a p p e a led , an d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls found that the jury’s ver dictw as t he produ cto f bi as, p assi on , or prej ud i ce and w as agai nst

### 2

the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed and r emanded f or an addi tur , ora new tr i al on damages i f the addi turw as notacc ept ed. ¶2. D r . A ckerm an f

i l ed a pet i t i on f

or a w r i t of cert i or ar i , w hi ch w e gr ant ed. W e f i nd t hat the tr i al cou rtdid not abu se i t s dis cret i on b y den ying an ad ditur or a new tri al on dam ages. T heref or e, w e r ever s e the j udgm entof the C our tof

A ppeal s and r ei ns t at e and a f f i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt . FACTS ¶3. D ow ns w or ked as the m anage rof a cl othi ng s t or e. O n Sept ember7, 2007, D ow ns w as t r avel i ng o n H i gh w a y 90 i n O c e a n Spr i ng s , M i s s i s s i pp i , t o make a b a nk d e po s i tf orher
e mp l o y e r . Dr . Ac k e r ma n r e a r - e n d e d Do wn s wh e n s h e wa s s t o p p e d a ta r e d l i g h t . An ambul ance tr ans por t ed D ow ns t o the emer gency r oom atK ees l erM edi cal C ent er , w her e s he
w as exam i ned and h ad x -r ays and an M R I. D ow ns w as r el eased an d, forthe n ext t en m on ths,
s he r eturned f

orper i odi c f

ol l ow - up vi s i t s atK ees l er ’ s f ami l y- pr act i ce c l i nic f

orper s i s t ent neck p a i n. W hi l e D owns t e s t i f i e d tha t , a tthe s e vi s i t s , s he c ompl a i ne d o f he a da c he s and bal ance pr obl ems, the K ees l err ecor ds s t at e thathe rba l ance w as “ nor m al ” and he rgai tand
s t ance w er e “norm al . ” D ow ns compl et ed thr ee mont hs of phys i cal t her apy. O n J ul y 1, 2008,
a nur s e pr act i t i oneratK ees l erre s tr i ct ed D ow ns f r om w or ki ng “unt i l f

ur thereval uat i on f

r om D r . J ohn M cC l os key. ” ¶4. D ow ns ’ s f

i r s t vi s i t w i th D r . M cC l os key, a neur os ur geon, occurr ed on J une 23, 2008. D r. M cC l oskey t est i fi ed by vi deo dep osi t i o n thathe d i agn osed D ow ns w i th thr ee prob l em s:

### Whil e Dr . Mc Clos key initia lly suspe ct ed a ri ght- shoul der injur y, an MRI r eve al ed 1 

### no pro blem w ith D owns’s rig ht sh ou lder. 3 pos t tr aumat i c nec k and r i ghts houl derpai n, vi s ual pr obl ems, and bi l at er al carpal tunnel 1
s yndr om e. H e t es t i f

i ed t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal cert ai nty thatthes e thr ee c ondi t i ons had bee n caus ed by the ac ci dent . D r . M cC l oskey tes t i f i ed thata M R I s how ed a di s c bul ge atC 5- C 6, and w ear - and- t earchange s atC
- 4, 5, C
- 5, 6, and C -6, 7 . H e tes t i f i ed thatthe
c e rv ica l sp in e is “ fre q u e n tly in ju re d o r ru p tu re d w ith h e a v y lifti n g o r re a r-e n d a u to
acc i dent s . ” ¶5. D r . M cC l os key r ef err ed D ow ns t o a physi cal t her api s tforherneck and s houl der pai n. H e r ef err ed D ow ns f

orel ectr i cal s tudi es f

orherhands , butthe stud i es w ere ne gat i ve f or carpal tun ne l s yn dr ome. None the l e s s , Dr . M c Cl os ke y t e s t i f i e d t o a r e a s on a bl e d e gr e e of
m edi cal pr obabi l i ty thatD ow ns s uf f er ed f r om c arpal tunnel s yndr om e thatha d been c aus ed by t he acc i dent . H e t es t i f i ed thats he s houl d be l i m i t ed t o l i ghtw or k. D r . M cC l os key r ef err ed D ow ns t o D r . T err y M i l l ett e, a neu rol ogi s tand neur oopthamol ogi s t , f oras s es s m entof

her
v is u a l p ro b le m s . ¶6. D r . M i l l ett e t es t i f i ed by vi deo depos i t i on that , af t er per f or m i ng neur ol ogi cal t es t i ng, he diagno sed D ow ns w i th centr al di s equi l i br i um s yndr om e as s oci at ed w i th a hi gh neck i nj ury. H e t es t i f

i ed thatthe s yndr om e i s caus ed by a n a bnor m al br ai n s t em r ef l ex, and ca us es a f eel i ng of di s equi l i br i um and an a bnor m al gai t . D r . M i l l ett e t es t i f i ed thatD ow ns had the ty p ica l co n ste llatio n o f p ro b lem s a ss o c iate d w ith th e sy n d ro m e . H e tes tified to a re a so n a b le d e g re e o f m e d ica l pr o b a b ili ty tha t D o w n s’s c e n tra l d ise q u ili b riu m sy n d ro m e w a s re late d to the ac ci dent . D r. M i l l ett e tr eat ed D ow n’ s condi t i on w i th cl onaze pam, w hi ch r educe s t he

### 4

fee li n g o f d ise q u ili b riu m , an d h e tes tified th a t sh e h a d im p ro v e d o n th e m e d ica tio n . H o w e v e r, h e testi fi ed that h er c o n d it ion is pe rm an en t, an d that sh e w il l nee d to b e u n d er a d o ctor’s
con t i nu i ng care f

or m edicat i on , ph ysi cal therapy , an d i nject i on s t o dim i nis h the sym ptom s. ¶7 . O n cro ss-ex am ination , D r. M il lette w a s q u e stion ed ab o u t ap p are n tl y co n tr ad ict o ry s t at ement s he had m ade i n a l ett era nd doc um ent s he ha d f i l l ed outf

orG E N E X , the company h a n d lin g D o w n s ’s w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n c laim . In a O c to b e r 8 , 2 0 0 8 , letter , D r. M ill e tte
s t at ed that , f

r om a neur ol ogi c s t andpoi nt , D ow ns coul d try t o r eturn t o w or k. O n O ct ober20, 2 0 0 8 , h e stated that itw as w ith in reaso n ab le m ed ical pro b ab il ity that D o w n s co u ld p erfo rm the dut i es of

a s t or e m anage r . O n J une 3, 2009, he f ound thats he had r eached m axi m um m edi cal i m pr ovement( M M I ) on O ct ober8, 2008. H e s t at ed thatD ow ns neede d no f ur ther d iagn o stic s tu d ies , m u st c o n tin u e h e r p re se n t m e d ica tio n , an d c o u ld p e rfo rm h e r reg u lar w o rk f ul l
- t i m e. H e f

ound no obj ect i ve bas i s t o gi ve D ow ns a n i m pai r m entr at i ng. O n Sept ember 3, 2009, he f

ound s he had r eac hed M M I on A ugus t18, 2009. H e r ecomm ended no f urt her tr eatm ent , and s t at ed “I thi nk thatthi s ni ce l ady s houl d be a l l ow ed t o r eturn t o w or k. ” O ver D ow ns ’ s obj ect i on, the tr i al co urtadmi t t ed thes e document s underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vidence 8 03 (6) , fi nd i ng that they w ere partof D r. M i l l et t e’s m edical recor ds. ¶8. D r . T err y Sm i th, a n ne ur os ur geon, t es t i f i ed by vi deo depos i t i on thathe had eval uat ed D ow ns on D ece m ber21, 2008. H e t es t i f i ed thatal l of

hertr eatm enthad bee n r eas onabl e and
n e c e s s a ry . In D r. S m ith ’s o p in io n , D o w n s c o u ld re tu rn to w o rk a s a s to re m a n a g e r. ¶9. D ow ns t est i fi ed that, sinc e the ac ci den t , she has exp eri enced neck pain, head aches, pa i n i n he rh a nd s , d i z z i ne s s , b a l a nc e p r ob l e ms, a nd v i s i on p r ob l e ms. Sh e t e s t i f i e d thather hands have i m pr oved s i nce s he has been w ear i ng s pl i nt s atni ght , and t hatherdi s equi l i br i um

### 5

pr obl ems have i m pr oved w i th m edi cat i on. B uthert es t i m ony i ndi cat ed t hatheri nj ur i es have p re v e n ted h e r fro m p a rticip a tin g in life to th e d e g re e to w h ich s h e w a s a c c u sto m e d p rio r to the acc i dent . D ow ns ’ s husband, R obertD ow ns , t es t i f i ed that , s i nce the ac ci dent , D ow ns had l ar gel y cea s ed social i zi ng w i th herf r i ends , and thathe had t o t ake c ar e of thei rhom e and chi l dr en bec aus e s he coul d no l ongerdo s o. ¶1 0. D owns t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he h a d mi s s e d a wee k of w or k af t ert he ac ci dentand t hen
r eturned t o w or k unt i l s he w as r es tr i ct ed f r om w or ki ng on J ul y 1, 2008. D ow ns w as outof
w or k f r om Jul y 1, 2 00 8, unt i l Sept ember9, 2009, w hen s he gota new j ob atT ar get . She t es t i f i ed t hatshe had att empt ed t o re turn t o w or k i n fa l l 2008, butherempl oyerhad r ef us ed to allo w h e r to retu rn b e c a u se sh e w a s ta k in g clo n a z e p a m . S h e tes tified tha t sh e w a s, in fa c t, unabl e t o per f

or m the dut i es of

a s t or e manageratthe clot hing st or e, beca us e thatj ob
r equi r ed dut i es i n addi t i on t o thos e l i s t ed on t he j ob desc r i pt i ons gi ven t o herphys i ci ans . She t es t i f i ed t hatt hes e addi t i onal dut i es had r equi r ed hert o l i f tboxes of

i nvent ory thatw ei ghed up t o 100 pounds . D ow ns al s o t es t i f i ed that , pr i ort o the ac ci dent , s he r out i nel y had l i f t ed boxes thatw ei ghed up t o 100 pounds . D ow ns t es t i f i ed thathe ri nj ur i es ha ve pr event ed her fro m b e in g a h a rd w o rk e r an d a g o o d m o th e r, frien d , a n d w ife . D o w n s te stifie d th a t, du e to h e r i n ju ri e s , h e r “ lif

e is ru in e d .” ¶11 . D ow ns sou gh tto recover h er pastan d future m edical ex pen ses, p ast an d futu re lost
w a g e s, p a in a n d su ffe rin g , an d m e n tal a n d e m o tio n a l d istre ss . S h e p re se n ted m e d ica l b ill s totali n g $ 2 0 , 8 0 0 . 3 0 an d claim ed ap p ro x im ately $ 1 0 , 5 0 0 in p ast l o st w ag es. T h e tri al co u rt
en tered an ag ree d ord er all o w ing D o w n s’s w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n insu ran ce ca rri er, Se n try I ns ur ance C om pany, t o i nt ervene i n the ac t i on t o prot ecti t s subr ogat i on cl ai m , w hi ch atthe

### Ro bert D owns’s claim is n ot a subject o f this ap peal. 2 

### 6 t i m e of the mot i on t o i nt ervene t ot al ed $30, 608. R obertD ow ns ass ert ed a l os s - of
- cons or t i um c laim . In c lo sin g arg u m e n ts, D o w n s’s co u n se l arg u e d tha t a fa ir v e rd ict fo r D o w n s w o u ld

2 be $251, 000. ¶1 2 . D u ri n g d eli b era ti o n s, the ju ry se n t ou t th ree qu esti o n s t o th e co u rt , ask ing “(1 ) D id D r. A ckerm an have i ns ur ance ?; ” ( 2) “ H ow much di d i ns ur ance pa y t ow ar d m edi cal bi l l s ?; ” and ( 3) “O f amount of m edi cal bi l l s notcover ed by cari ns . w hatw as outof pocketexpens es ?” W ith the p arti es’ a g ree m en t, the tri al co u rti n stru cted th e jury th at “Y o u are n o t to co n ce rn your s el f w i th t hes e i s s ues . Y ou ar e t o conce ntr at e on the evi dence and t es t i m ony pr es ent ed attr i al . C ont i nue t o del i ber at e. ” T he j ury r eturned a ve r di ctf orD ow ns i n the amountof $20, 000 and aw ar ded nothi ng t o R obertD ow ns . T he tr i al courtdeni ed D ow ns ’ s pos t - tr i al
m o tio n fo r a n a d d itu r o r a n e w trial. ¶13. D ow ns app eal ed, argui ng that the tr i al court s houl d have gra nt ed her m ot i on f oran add itur or a new tri al on dam ages. T his C ou rtassi gn ed the case t o the C ou rtof A pp eal s, w hi ch r ever s ed and r emanded f oran addi tur , ori f

the addi turw as nota cce pt ed, a new t r i al
on d am ag es. N oti ng that D r. A ckerm an h ad o ff ered no w i tnesses and m erel y h ad crosse x a m in e d D o w n s’s w itn e ss e s, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d th a t D r. A c k e rm a n h a d fa iled to of f ercontr adi ct ory evi dence r ebutt i ng D ow ns ’ s evi dence t hatheri nj ur i es had bee n caus ed by the ac ci dent . T he C our tof A ppeal s concl uded that , bas ed on the r ecor d evi dence , t he
ver di ctof

$20, 000 w as aga i ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the cr edi bl e evi dence and
c o n stitu ted ina d e q u a te c o m p e n sa tio n fo r D o w n s’s cla im e d d a m a g e s. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls contr as t ed the amount of D ow ns ’ s medi cal bi l l s of $20, 800. 30 w i th the ver di ctof $20, 000

### 7

and i nf err ed evi dence of

bi as , pr ej udi ce, orpas s i on. A l so, the C our tof A ppeal s f

ound t hat the j ury’ s ques t i ons abouti ns ur ance , al ong w i th the admi s s i on of the G E N E X document s t hat
r ef err ed t o D ow ns as a “c l ai m ant , ” i ndi cat ed j ury conf us i on. ¶1 4. W e gr ant ed Dr . Acke r man’ s p e t i t i on f orc e r t i or a r i a nd now r ever s e t he C our t of A p p e a ls a n d re in s ta te a n d a ff ir m th e tr ia l- c o u rt ju d g m e n t.

A N A L Y S IS ¶15 . M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 1 1-1-55, w hich prov i des for an add i tur or r em i t t i tur, st at es: T he s upr eme courto r any ot hercourtof r ecor d i n a ca s e i n w hi ch money damages w er e aw ar ded may overrul e a m ot i on f orne w tr i al ora f

f i r m on di r ect orcr os s appea l , upon condi t i on of a n addi turorr emi t t i tur , i f the courtf

i nds thatthe damages ar e exc ess i ve or i nadequa t e f orthe r eas on thatthe j ury or tr i erof the f act s w as i nf

l uence d by bi as , pr ej udi ce, orpas s i on, orthatthe d a m a g e s a w a rd e d w e re c o n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f c re d ib le evi dence . I f

s uch addi turorr emi t t i turbe notacc ept ed then the courtm ay di r ect a new tri al on damages onl y. I f the addi turorr emi t t i turi s acc ept ed and the otherparty per f

ect s a di r ectap peal , then the party acc ept i ng the addi turor r emi t t i turs hal l have the r i ghtt o cr os s appea l f orthe purpos e of

r ever s i ng the ac ti o n o f th e c o u rtin reg ard to the ad d itu r or rem itti tur. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -5 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶16. W e r evi ew the tr i al c our t ’ s de ci s i on t o d eny an ad ditur f or abuse o f di s cr et i on. T hom ps on v. N

guyen , 86 So. 3d 232, 237 ( 2012) . T he party cl ai m i ng an ad di turhas t he b u rd e n o f p ro v in g h is in ju ri e s a n d d a m a g e s . Maddox v. Muir head , 738 So. 2d 742, 743 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ). “W e v iew the ev id e n c e in th e li g h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e d e fe n d a n t, giv in g h im al l f avor abl e i nf

er ence s thatm ay be r easona bly dr aw n ther ef r om . ” I d. ( ci t i ng R odgers v. P a sc ag o u la P u b . S c h . D ist. , 6 1 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 )). T h e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s is
a q u e stio n fo r th e ju ry . Maddox , 7 3 8 S o . 2 d a t 7 4 3 . B e c a u se a ju ry a w a rd is n o t m e re ly advi s ory, i tg ener al l y w i l l notbe “s etas i de unl es s s o unr eas onabl e as t o s tr i ke manki nd at

### 8

fi rs tb l ush as bei ng beyond al l m eas ur e, unr eas onabl e i n amount and outr ageous . ” I d. ( quot i ng R od

gers , 611 So. 2d at945) . “A ddi tur s r epr es enta j udi ci al incurs i on i nt o t he tr a d iti o n a l h a b itat o f th e ju ry , a n d th e re fo re s h o u ld n e v e r b e e m p lo y e d w ith o u t g re a t c a u tio n .” Maddox , 738 So. 2d at743 ( quot i ng G ibbs v. B anks , 5 2 7 S o . 2 d 6 5 8 , 6 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )). ¶17. T he C our tof A ppeal s found thatD r . A ckerm an had f ai l ed t o of

f ers uf f i ci ent evi dence to reb u t D o w n s’s clai m that h er m ed ical ex p en ses w ere n ec essa ry a n d rea so n ab le. T h is C o u rt has hel d that“[ w ] hen a pa r ty t akes the w i tnes s s t and and e xhi bi t s bi l l s f or exa m i nat i on by the c o u rtan d t esti fi es tha t said bil ls w ere i n cu rred as a resu ltof the injuries co m p lai n ed o f, they bec om e p ri m a f

aci e evi dence thatthe bi l l s s o pai d ori ncurr ed w er e nec es s ary and
r eas onabl e. ” E s ta te o

f B o lde n v. Wil

lia ms , 17 So. 3d 1069, 1071-72 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng J a c kso n v. B ru m

fie ld , 4 5 8 S o . 2 d 7 3 6 , 7 3 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 )); s ee M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 9- 119 ( R ev. 2009) . “The opposi ng party m ay then ‘ r ebutthe neces s i ty and r eas onabl enes s of t he bi l l s by p roperevi dence , ’ ” and “ [ i ] f the oppos i ng party r ebut s the medi cal bi l l s by pr oper evi dence , the ques t i on i s ul t i m at el y one f orthe j ury. ” E s tate of

B olden , 17 So. 3d at1072 ( quot i ng Jacks on , 4 5 8 S o . 2 d a t 7 3 7 ). R e ly in g o n th e se p rin c ip les , th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t D o w n s’s p re se n tatio n o f h e r m e d ica l b ill s, a lo n g w ith m e d ic a l tes tim o n y th a t th e b ill s w ere incu rred d u e to th e a cc iden t, co n sti tuted p rim a fa cie e v iden ce that the b il ls w ere nece s s ary and r eas onabl e. T he C our tof A pp e a l s he l d thatD r . A ckerm an’ s cr os s - exami nat i on o f D o w n s’s ex p erts w as in su ffi cien t t o reb u t th e p resu m p tio n th at he r bil ls w ere n ec essa ry a n d re a s o n a b le .

### 9

¶1 8. E ven i f

m e di c a l b i l l s a r e n e ces s ar i l y and r eas onabl y i ncur r ed f ora par t i cul ar con dit i on , that f

actdo es not“m and at e a f i nd i ng that tho se m edical bi l l s w ere i ncu rr ed as a
r es ul tof the ac ci denti n ques t i on. ” Her r ing v. P oir r ier , 7 9 7 S o . 2d 7 9 7 , 8 0 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). T h ere fore , w h il e D o w n s’s m ed ical bil ls establishe d a p resu m p ti o n that th o se b il ls w ere r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y f o rt h e t r e a t me n to f

h e ri n j u r i e s , h e rme d i c a l b i l l s we r e n o tp r i ma f aci e evi dence t hatt he ac ci dentw as the pr oxi m at e caus e of D ow ns ’ s i nj ur i es . D ow ns had the bur den t o pr ove by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe ac ci dentpr oxi m at el y caus ed her neck i nj ury, c arpal tunnel s yndr om e, and ce ntr al di s equi l i br i um s yndr om e. D ow ns att empt ed to m e e t th is b u rd e n w ith th e tes tim o n y o f D r. M c C lo sk e y a n d D r. M ill e tte, w h o tes tified to
a r eas onabl e degr ee of

m edi cal pr obabi l i ty thatthes e condi t i ons had bee n caus ed by t he acci den t . D r. A ckerm an at t em pted t o castd ou bt on t his causat i on t est i m on y thr ou gh cross exami nat i on. R egar di ng proof of pr oxi m at e ca us e of

i nj ur i es i ncurr ed i n a r ear - end col l i s i on, w e h a v e sta ted th a t A pl ai nt i f

f has the bur den of

proof , and mustof

f erevi dence thatper s uades the j ury. T he j ury i s notr equi r ed t o bel i eve ortrus tthe evi dence s ubm i t t ed by the p la in tif f, a n d is fr e e to a c c e p t a ll, p a rt , o r n o n e o f t h e p la in tif f ' s e v id e n c e . A def endanti s notr equi r ed t o pr ove orr ebutanythi ng.

. . . [ E xpertopi ni ons ar e] notobl i gat ory orbi ndi ng on tr i er s of f actb ut [ ar e] advi s ory i n natur e. T he j ury m ay cr edi tthem or notas they appe arent i t l ed, w ei ghi ng and j udgi ng the expert ’ s opi ni on i n the cont extof al l of the evi dence i n the case and the j ury’s ow n g eneral kn ow l edg e of af fai rs . T hom ps on v. N

guyen , 8 6 S o . 3 d 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 -37 (M iss. 2 0 1 2 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶19. T hr ough c r os s - exami nat i on, D r . A ckerm an s oughtt o s how thatD ow ns ’ s i nj ur i es had notbeen ca us ed by t he acc i dent . D r . A ckerm an cr os s - exami ned D ow ns ’ s phys i ci ans about

### 10

th e fa c t th a t h e r c o m p la in ts h a d b e c o m e d ra m a tica lly w o rse ten m o n th s a fte r th e a c c id e n t,
w h en sh e sa w D r. M cC losk ey an d w as re ferred to D r. M il let te. D r. A ck erm an att ac k ed D r. M i l l ett e’ s opi ni on thatt he ac ci denthad caus ed D ow ns ’ s centr al di s equi l i br i um s yndr om e by p o in tin g to th e re c o rd s o f D o w n s’s n u m e ro u s v isits to K e e sle r, w h ich in d ica ted th a t h e r g a it and bal ance had been “norm al ” f ort en m onths pos t - acc i dent . W hi l e D r . M cC l os key opi ned t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal pr obabi l i ty thatD ow ns had ca rpal tunnel s yndr om e, t es t i ng di d notconf

i r m thatdi agnos i s , cas t i ng doubton h i s con cl us i on thatD ow ns had s uf f er ed
carpal tunnel s yndr om e as a r es ul tof the ac ci dent . In cl os i ng ar gum ent s , D r . A ckerm an r el i ed on the opi ni on of

D r . M cC l os key t o ar gue thatD ow ns ’ s heavy l i f t i ng atw or k coul d have aggr avat ed herneck t o the degr ee thati tcaus ed hert o devel op carpal tunnel s yndr om e and centr al di s equi l i br i um s yndr om e. O urs t andar d of r evi ew demands thatw e vi ew the evi dence in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to D r. A c k e rm a n a n d g iv e D r. A c k e rm a n th e b e n e fit o f a ll f avor abl e i nf

er ence s . So cons i der ed, w e cannotsay thatthe ver di ctw as “s o unr eas onabl e as t o s tr i ke manki nd atf

i r s tbl us h as bei ng beyond al l m eas ur e, unreas on abl e i n amount and outr ageous . ” Maddox , 738 So. 2d at743. The tr i al c our tw as w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng th a t th e v e rd ic t w a s n o t a g a in s t th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . ¶20. N ordi d the tr i al courtabus e i t s di s cr et i on by f i ndi ng t hat t he verdi ctw as not the p ro d u c t o f b ias , p re

ju d ice , o r p a ss io n a s a re su lt o f th e G E N E X lette rs. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f ound thatthe j ury’ s ques t i ons , al ong w i th the admi s s i on of the G E N E X l ett er s , i ndi cat ed that the j ury w as conf

us ed and thatthe ver di ctw as the pr oductof bi as , pr ej udi ce, orpas s i on. T he ju ry ’s q u e s tio n s w e re “ (1 ) “ D id D r. A c k e rm a n h a v e in su ra n c e ? ;” ( 2 ) “ H o w m u c h d id i ns ur ance pay t ow ar d m edi cal bi l l s ?; ” and ( 3) “O f am ountof

m edi cal bi l l s notcover ed by ca r

### 11

ins. w h at w as o u t of p o ck et e x p en ses? ” In d en y ing the m o ti o n for a n ad d itu r, the tri al co u rt
s t at ed that , w hen t he j ur or s w er e depa r t i ng the courtr oom t o begi n del i ber at i ons , one j ur or had as ked the courtw hetherthe j ury c oul d a s k s om e ques t i ons . The tr i al courtnot ed that , at that ti m e, th e ju ry d id n o t h av e the G E N E X let ters. T h e tri al co u rtfou n d that the ju ry’s ques t i ons di d notr el at e t o the cont entof the G E N E X l ett er s , buti ns t ead r ef err ed t o m edi cal
ora ut om obi l e i ns ur ance , mat t er s of c om m on know l edge. Ther ef or e, the tr i al c our tf

ound t hat the a d m issi o n o f th e G E N E X l ett ers h ad no t b iased or pre jud iced th e jury . Ind ee d , th e jury ’s ques t i ons do notr ef

ert o w or ker s ’ compensa t i on i ns ur ance orthe G E N E X l ett er s , and as fo u n d b y th e trial c o u rt, ref e r to lia b ili ty in su ra n c e . T h e tria l co u rt in stru c ted th e ju ry n o t to
conce rn i t s el f

w i th thes e ques t i ons , butt o c ont i nue t o de l i ber at e. W e f i nd no abu se of di s cr et i on i n the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ng thatthe ver di ctw as notthe pr oductof bi as , pr ej udi ce, orpas s i on. T he tr i al court ’ s deni al of D ow ns ’ s m ot i on f

oran addi turora new tr i al on damages w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. CO NC L US I ON ¶21. B eca us e t he t ri al cou rt ’s deni al of D ow ns ’ s m ot i on f or an addi tur or a new tr i al on damages w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on, w e r ever s e the j udgm entof the C our tof

A ppeal s and
re in s ta te a n d a ff

ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e J a c k s o n C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt . ¶ 2 2 . T HE J U D GME N T O F T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE J ACK S ON CO UNTY C I RC UI T COU RT I S REI NST ATED A N D A F F I R M E D . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P. JJ . , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.