Case Name: James R. HUBBARD, Appellant, v. Thuthuy TRUONG, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-11-01
Citations: 502 S.W.3d 89
Docket Number: No. ED 103890
Parties: James R. HUBBARD, Appellant, v. Thuthuy TRUONG, Respondent.
Judges: Before, James M. Dowd, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 502
Pages: 89–89

Head Matter:
James R. HUBBARD, Appellant, v. Thuthuy TRUONG, Respondent.
No. ED 103890
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: November 1, 2016
Jeremy Andrew Gogel, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant
Nakeyia Shermaine Williams, St. Louis, Missouri, for Respondent
Before, James M. Dowd, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
James R. Hubbard ("Plaintiff') appeals from the jury's verdict in his action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident against Thuthuy Truong ("Defendant"). Plaintiff raises three points on appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in: 1) allowing Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff with Plaintiffs VA medical records because they were not produced to Plaintiff prior to trial; 2) allowing Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff with Plaintiffs VA medical records because there was no evidentiary foundation for their admission; and 3) denying Plaintiffs motion for additur, or alternatively, motion for new trial because a verdict of $0 is manifestly unjust and grossly inadequate. Finding no error of law, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).