IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40728

Summary Calendar

JOSEPH C. PAEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

VADIM GELBOYM, AMROS SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-564

Before KING, JOLLY, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant, Joseph C. Paez, filed suit against Vadim Gelboym 

and Amros Solutions, Incorporated (collectively, “defendants”), alleging 

personal injuries and property damage resulting from a motor vehicle accident 

in August 2010. Paez was driving his automobile and pulling a recreational 

boat when he was struck from behind by a tractor-trailer owned by Amros and 

operated by Gelboym. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 15, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40728 Document: 00512734912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2014
No. 13-40728

The case was tried to a jury, which apportioned 15 percent of the 

responsibility for the accident to Paez and 85 percent to Gelboym. The jury 

awarded Paez $15,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish, $15,000 for 

future physical impairment, $5,000 for past medical expenses, and $15,000 for 

property damage to Paez’s automobile and boat. The jury found that Paez was 

not entitled to any damages for future physical pain and mental anguish, past 

and future loss of earning capacity, past physical impairment, and future 

medical expenses.

The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ 

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. It held that the evidence was 

legally insufficient to support the jury’s awards of $5,000 for past medical 

expenses and $15,000 for future physical impairment. Although Paez was 

represented by counsel at trial, he is representing himself on appeal.

Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if “the court finds that a 

reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for 

the party on that issue.” FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a). We review a judgment as a 

matter of law de novo, applying the same standard that the district court 

applied. E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., 731 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2013) 

(en banc). Under that standard, the jury’s verdict is given great deference, all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence are drawn in favor of the non-moving 

party, and the court may not make credibility determinations or weigh 

evidence. Id. at 452.

The district court did not err by granting judgment as a matter of law to 

the defendants with respect to the jury’s awards for past medical expenses and 

future physical impairment. The district court held that Paez failed to provide 

any evidence to show a causal connection between his past medical expenses 

and the collision. The court noted that Paez did not seek medical attention 

immediately after the accident. He spent the night in a hotel and flew to 

2

 Case: 13-40728 Document: 00512734912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2014
No. 13-40728

Chicago the next day, where he sought medical attention by going to a hospital 

for testing. However, he did not present any evidence of the medical expenses 

that he incurred for that visit and testing. The district court held that the 

defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the 

award of damages for future physical impairment because Paez did not present 

any medical testimony to show a reasonable medical probability that there was 

a causal connection between the collision and future physical impairment. 

Paez has not directed us to any evidence in the record1 to support the jury’s 

finding of a causal connection between the accident and his past medical 

expenses and future physical impairment. In the absence of a legally sufficient 

evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to award damages for past medical 

expenses and future physical impairment, we have no basis upon which to 

reverse the district court’s rulings.2

Paez also argues that, if the evidence of his damages was not adequately 

presented, it was because he was not adequately represented at trial. He 

therefore contends that he is entitled to a new trial. As we have noted, Paez 

was represented by counsel at trial. His allegations that the representation 

was inadequate are not grounds for a new trial.3

The judgment of the district court is

1 We do not consider evidence that was not presented to the jury.

2 Paez’s motion to obtain a transcript at government expense is DENIED. We note 

that both the district court and this court denied Paez’s motions for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) on appeal because he failed to assert a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. In 

requesting a transcript at government expense, Paez relies on the same evidence he 

submitted in support of his IFP motion. In support of his argument that the district court 

erred in granting judgment as a matter of law, Paez relies on evidence that was not presented 

at trial. He therefore has not shown a particularized need for a transcript or that he presents 

a substantial question on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). 

3 To the extent that Paez’s reference to “review of mistrial by misrepresentation of 

evidence and testimony” is an argument that he should have been granted a mistrial, he 

failed to preserve the issue by moving for a mistrial.

3

 

 Case: 13-40728 Document: 00512734912 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/15/2014
No. 13-40728

AFFIRMED.4

4 Paez’s motions to file a supplemental brief, to supplement the record on appeal with 

miscellaneous documents, and to view sealed documents are DENIED. 

4

 

 Case: 13-40728 Document: 00512734912 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/15/2014