labor and heavy lifting and presented the testimony of another doctor, who 

testified that Gomez had pre-existing complaints about pain in her neck, 

back, arms and legs. This doctor, however, also testified that Gomez's disc 

injuries were caused by the accident. After considering the evidence, the 

jury awarded Gomez $0 for damages. 

Gomez moved for a new trial based on the jury's manifest 

disregard of the jury instructions and misconduct by Barrera-Mejia's 

counsel. The district court found that the jury had disregarded the jury 

instructions because the jurors could not have found an absence of 

damages when all three doctors testified that Gomez's disc injuries were 

caused by the accident. The district court also found that defense counsel 

improperly challenged Gomez's medical expenses through arguments that 

appealed solely to the emotions of the jury, and that the objections and 

admonishments given were insufficient to cure the effect of the improper 

arguments. The district court granted a new trial, and this appeal 

followed. 

The district court may grant a new trial when, among other 

things, there is Imlisconduct of the jury or prevailing party . . . [or] 

[m]anifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court." NRCP 

59(a). We review a district court's decision to grant a motion for a new 

trial for an abuse of discretion. Edwards Indus., Inc. v. DTE/BTE, Inc., 

112 Nev. 1025, 1036, 923 P.2d 569, 576 (1996). In this case, the three 

doctors who testified unequivocally stated that, based upon their 

examination of Gomez and review of her pre- and post-accident medical 

records, Gomez's disc injuries and treatment were caused by the accident. 

On this record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 
Picky? d 

Pickering 

Saitta 

discretion in granting a new trial.' Taylor v Silva, 96 Nev. 738, 740-41, 

615 P.2d 970, 971-72 (1980); Shere v. Davis, 95 Nev. 491, 493, 596 P.2d 

499, 500 (1979). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting 

a new trial. 

It is so ORDERED. 2 

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 

Eva Garcia-Mendoza, Settlement Judge 

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas 

Law Offices of R.S. & Associates 

Vannah & Vannah 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

iBarrera-Mejia also argued that Gomez was required to prove 

causation by providing a biomechanical expert's opinion that Gomez's 

injuries were caused by the accident. A plaintiff in a personal injury 

action is not required to present a biomechanical expert to prove 

causation. Rather, causation issues, including the severity of an accident 

and whether injuries stemmed from the accident are proper factual issues 

for a jury, Nehls v. Leonard, 97 Nev. 325, 328, 630 P.2d 258, 260 (1981), 

and a medical doctor may offer an opinion regarding how certain injuries 

were caused if a proper foundation is laid. See Santos v. Nicolos, 879 

N.Y.S.2d 701, 704 (Sup. Ct. 2009); Streight v. Conroy, 566 P.2d 1198, 1200 

(Or. 1977). 

2We have considered Barrera-Mejia's other arguments on appeal and 

conclude that they lack merit. 

SUPREME COUFF1 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1.9.0A