FILED

April 16, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt

Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

AT KNOXVILLE

HEATHER N. COCHRAN ) JEFFERSON COUNTY

 ) 03A01-9809-CV-00292

Plaintiff-Appellee )

)

)

v . ) HON. RICHARD VANCE

) JUDGE

)

RICHARD H. LOWE ) AFFIRMED AS SUGGESTED 

 ) BY REMITTITUR

Defendant-Appellant ) and REMANDED

JAMES W. HARRISON OF MORRISTOWN FOR APPELLANT

P. RICHARD TALLEY OF DANDRIDGE FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

 Goddard, P.J. 

Richard H. Lowe appeals a judgment rendered against him

in favor of Heather N. Cochran in the total amount of $27,500. 

He argues on appeal that Ms. Cochran, who was injured in a

vehicular accident with Mr. Lowe, did not introduce any proof to

show what her future drug expenses would be and, consequently,

the portion of the judgment allocated for that should be reduced

to $9000, the amount of future physician expenses she did prove

she would incur.
2

At the outset we note that there is a discrepancy

between the special verdict returned by the jury and the judgment

entered by the Court in that, although both assessed damages to

be $27,500, the items comprising that amount in the special

verdict form were $5000 for pain and suffering up to date of

trial, $2500 for loss of past enjoyment of life, $5000 for

medical expenses, and $15,000 for future medical expenses. The

judgment entered, however, allocated the $27,500 as follows: 

$2500 for pain and suffering before trial; $5000 for medical

expenses prior to trial, and $20,000 for future medical expenses.

In response to inquiry by the Court as to the foregoing

discrepancy, counsel for Mr. Cochran contends that the judgment

entered contained a clerical error and the $27,500 should be

allocated as found in the special verdict. Counsel for Mr. Lowe

conceded the special verdict of the jury should prevail under the

authority of State v. Bouchard , 563 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn.Crim.

App.1977). We accordingly will proceed to the disposition of

this appeal based upon the figures found in the special verdict

form. 

With regard to future medical expenses, there is proof

that Ms. Cochran will be required to continue visits to her

psychiatrist for perhaps a period of four or five years, the

total expense being approximately $9000. While there is proof

that she would incur additional expenses for medicine, there is
3

no proof at all to suggest what that amount might be. The only

proof regarding future expenses for medicine is the following:

Q. Doctor, within reasonable medical certainty,

what kind of future treatment will Ms. Cochran require

for the conditions you have told the jury about?

A . In my opinion she will need continuing

psychiatric treatment, predominately psychotherapy to

educate her about her problems and how to manage them,

and maintenance on anti-depressant medicines and

tranquilizers.

I think that in order for her to be comfortable

and to keep her symptoms suppressed that she is going

to need to remain on anti-depressant medicines

indefinitely.

Q . Doctor, how long do you anticipate that the

treatment you have said she will need, how long will

that be necessary?

A . My experience with people who are

conscientious and maintain on these medications is that

the symptoms are slowly suppressed and over a period of

three to five years, but where that individual has had

symptoms for a long time it is more difficult to

suppress the symptoms and they’re more likely to come

back.

Q . So Doctor, here with Ms. Cochran you’re

saying she will need psychiatric treatment, some

psychotherapy sessions and medication for a three to

five year period. Could you tell or give the jury

within reasonable medical certainty an estimate of what

the expense would be for the psychiatric treatment and

the psychotherapy for a three year period, a four year

period and a five year period, approximately how much

that would be in dollars for her care?

A . Not including medicines approximately $150.00

a month and for a five year period, and then thereafter

she might need to maintain on these medications for a

long time, but the frequency of treatment would become

maintenance perhaps of seeing a psychiatrist once every

three months.
4

For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that

the judgment of $15,000 for future medical expenses is not

supported by the proof, and suggest a remittitur in the sum of

$6000, which reduces the future medical expenses to the $9000

proved.

In the event the Plaintiff does not accept the

suggested remittitur within 30 days after the mandate is received

and entered in the Trial Court, a new trial will be granted as to

future medical expenses.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial

Court, as suggested by remittitur, is affirmed and the cause

remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this

opinion. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Ms. Cochran.

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J. 

CONCUR:

________________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

________________________________

Joseph M. Tipton, Sp.J.