Case Name: Sandra PETERSON, Appellant, v. Juan Villegas REYNA and Howard Shadrock, Individually and d/b/a Shadrock Trucking Company, Appellees
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1995-08-16
Citations: 908 S.W.2d 472
Docket Number: No. 04-94-00482-CV
Parties: Sandra PETERSON, Appellant, v. Juan Villegas REYNA and Howard Shadrock, Individually and d/b/a Shadrock Trucking Company, Appellees.
Judges: Before HARDBERGER, DUNCAN and BUTTS, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 908
Pages: 472–482

Head Matter:
Sandra PETERSON, Appellant, v. Juan Villegas REYNA and Howard Shadrock, Individually and d/b/a Shadrock Trucking Company, Appellees.
No. 04-94-00482-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.
Aug. 16, 1995.
Rehearing Overruled Sept. 27, 1995.
Daniel J.T. Sciano, Ronald J. Salazar, Tins-man & Houser, Inc., San Antonio, for appellant.
Edward T. Heeker, Terrence J. Martin, Martin & Strolle, P.C., San Antonio, W. Wendell Hall, Renee A. Forinash, Fulbright & Jaworski, San Antonio, for appellees.
Before HARDBERGER, DUNCAN and BUTTS, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
BUTTS, Justice.
This is a personal injury case. After a jury trial and verdict, judgment was entered in favor of appellant, Sandra Peterson, Plaintiff below. The trial court denied Peterson's motion for new trial. We affirm.
In her first point of error, appellant argues that the jury's award of "zero" damages for past physical pain and mental anguish, future medical care, and future physical pain and mental anguish is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. In her second point, appellant maintains the trial court abused its discretion when it applied the wrong standard of review in considering and overruling appellant's motion for new trial.
The cause of action arose from an intersec-tional collision on October 23, 1990, between Peterson's automobile and a gravel truck driven by Juan Villegas Reyna and owned by appellee, Howard Shadrock d/b/a Shadroek Trucking Company. The jury apportioned negligence at 50% for Reyna, 20% for Sha-drock, and 30% for Peterson.
It was shown that after the collision, appellant lifted her son from his car seat and displayed no sign of back or neck injuries to witnesses and police officers at the scene; she complained of minor cuts on her forehead. There was evidence she exclaimed, "Thank God, no one was hurt." Appellant declined the offer to'call the EMS.
Three days later appellant visited Dr. James Richter, complaining of general physical discomfort. The doctor found no sign of a spinal injury. He did see bruising on her left knee, right leg, and in the occipital area. His diagnosis was muscle strain which required no orthopedic referral, and he prescribed Tylenol. The doctor instructed appellant to return if she continued to experience pain. Appellant did not see Dr. Richter again until April 15, 1992, and did not complain at that time of back or neck pain.
The next health care provider to testify was Dr. Frank Viola, a chiropractor, who examined appellant about a month after the accident. He performed a straight leg raising test to discover any disease of an inter-vertebral disk, and he found none. Dr. Viola x-rayed appellant's cervical and lumbar spine for flexion and extension views of the neck. He discovered a temporary condition, loss of lordosis, a forward curvature of the lumbar spine. He found no herniated disks and diagnosed appellant as experiencing general sprain and strain. He advised appellant to continue treatment with him, but she did not return.
On July 11, 1991, appellant was examined by Dr. Stephen Earle, an orthopedic surgeon. The doctor testified that MRIs showed three minor bulges of the disk in her neck, but they did not impact on nerves. He said moderate disk herniation at L5-L6 was shown. Dr. Earle diagnosed appellant's condition as segmental instability; however the earlier x-rays of Dr. Viola did not show this. Dr. Earle's flexion and extension x-rays indicated to him that appellant had developed retrolisthesis, a condition not shown to exist when Dr. Viola x-rayed the area. Dr. Earle recommended surgery to appellant, but up to the time of trial, she declined the operation.
She did begin physical therapy at his advice and attended a few sessions. There was evidence appellant told the therapists she was "feeling fairly good" and "feeling fine." Because she failed to attend the required sessions, they discharged appellant from the program. Appellant stated she could no longer borrow the car from a friend to drive to the sessions; in addition, after driving home she did not think the therapy was helping her.
Eighteen months after the accident Dr. Dennis Gutzman performed an independent medical examination. In contrast to Earle, he testified his viewing of the MRIs of appellant's neck did not show retrolisthesis. He agreed with Dr. Earle's findings regarding a moderate disk bulge in her neck and a moderate herniation at L5-S1. He concluded appellant could treat the neck problems with anti-inflammatory medication such as Advil or Tylenol and a home exercise program. Both doctors indicated the bulging neck disk could have been congenital. Dr. Earle would recommend surgery for the neck, and Dr. Gutzman would not.
Regarding appellant's back problems, Gutzman's testimony indicated the natural aging process might possibly account for the MRI showing a moderate herniation. However, he agreed that the temporary lordosis loss resulted from the accident. Further, he also believed that some lumbar problems resulted from the accident. Dr. Gutzman would not recommend surgery on appellant's back, although he did not rule out the possi ble need later. Dr. Earle recommended surgery on the back and estimated the cost of that surgery to be about $60,000 along with attendant medical care costs. There had been no operation on appellant's back at the time of trial, nor was one scheduled for the future.
The evidence shows that appellant saw doctors nine times in three and one-half years from the date of the collision. During the first month she saw two doctors (Richter and Viola); however, it was seven and one-half months after that when she saw another doctor (Earle). The injuries noted in that medical exam comprise the bases of Peterson's claims. Appellant saw Dr. Earle six times until the time of trial.
Although appellant testified to experiencing pain since the time of the accident, her brother said he did not notice her in pain until Christmas 1992 caused when her son jumped off a chair into her arms, and she fell to her knees. He said that before the accident appellant had helped him move a 250 pound desk. A close friend, LaNell Royal, stated that Peterson never admitted to her she was in pain, although it was plain her activities around the house were curtailed. Another witness noticed that appellant turned her body instead of just her head when talking to or looking at her. They all agreed appellant was not as active as she once had been. There had been no prescription for pain medication until Dr. Earle prescribed it. Appellant said she did not always take the medication because it made her dizzy and sleepy.
The jury trial continued for two weeks, and Peterson presented sixteen witnesses, including the referenced doctors and other health care providers. It was pointed out in jury argument that the jury could have observed appellant for any signs of pain or discomfort during trial, and she had displayed none; it was also stressed they could observe that she did not have to move her whole body and not just her head when she talked to another. The following broad form damages question was answered by the jury:
QUESTION NO. 3
What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate SANDRA PETERSON for her injuries, if any, that resulted from the collision in question?
Consider the elements of damage listed below and none other. Consider each element separately. Do not include damages for one element in any other element. Do not include interest on any amount of damages you find.
Do not reduce the amounts, if any, in your answers because of the negligence, if any, of SANDRA PETERSON.
Answer in dollars and cents for damages, if any, that were sustained in the past and in reasonable probability will be sustained in the future separately.
a. Physical pain and mental anguish -0-
b. Physical impairment -0-
c. Medical care 8,909.00
d. Loss of earning capacity -0-
Answer: In the Past $8,909.00
a. Physical pain and mental anguish -0-
b. Physical impairment -0-
c. Medical care -0-
d. Loss of earning capacity -0-
In the Future $ -0-
The record reflects that the sum found as damages is exactly that proved for past medical care costs. Appellant asserts the zero findings are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. See Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 634-36 (Tex.1986); In re King's Estate, 244 S.W.2d 660, 661-62 (Tex.1951). The supreme court set out the standard of review as follows:
When reviewing a jury verdict to determine the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the court of appeals must consider and weigh all the evidence, and should set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986).
Pursuant to the mandated standard of care, this reviewing court will weigh all the evidence to determine whether the jury's verdict is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust.
Appellant emphasizes it was the intention of the jury to award only the amount shown for past medical expenses, and the jury failed to award damages which were proved for past pain and mental anguish and for future damages. To support the argument, appellant focuses on the jury's margin notation of $8909 beside past medical expenses. However, the supreme court has ruled with regard to a broad form damages question:
We cannot consider the margin notations as separate damage awards for purposes of evidentiary review. See First National Bank in Dallas v. Zimmerman, 442 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.1969); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Alexander, 868 S.W.2d 322, 328 (Tex.1993). The Court stated in Zimmerman that the jury's "handwritten notation was not the jury's verdict; it merely reflected the jury's mental processes in arriving at their verdict.... The jury's reasons for reaching a particular verdict are irrelevant, at least in the absence of some overt act of misconduct."
Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 359-60 (Tex.1995). In the present case no evidence has been presented that there was some overt act of misconduct by the jury. This court cannot speculate as to the jury's reasons or mental processes in awarding damages.
A jury's failure to find a fact means the jury was not convinced by a preponderance of the evidence. The reviewing court may not reverse simply because it concludes the evidence preponderates toward an affirmative answer. We may only reverse when the great weight of the evidence supports an affirmative answer. Pilkington v. Kornell, 822 S.W.2d 223, 225-26 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1991, writ denied).
Appellant did not report any other intervening traumatic event to the independent medical examiner or to Dr. Earle. However, there was evidence at trial that she and her ex-husband, subsequent to the accident, had engaged in some "pushing and shoving" and that he had "slapped" her. It is noted that appellant continued with her housekeeping activities except for restrictions such as in reaching overhead, and Dr. Earle recommended no lifting of over 40 pounds.
Appellant does not emphasize particular evidence of the symptoms or signs of mental anguish shown to result from the tort. See e.g., Town East Ford Sales, Inc. v. Gray, 730 S.W.2d 796, 803 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1987, no writ). Further, two of the treating physicians did not see a need for future lengthy medical procedure. Immediately after the accident, Richter recommended only Tylenol for strain. Shortly after that, the practicing chiropractor recommended physical therapy to be administered at his clinic. Both of these doctors based their opinions on x-rays taken shortly after the accident.
The orthopedic surgeon who examined appellant several months after the collision was the first one to prescribe a pain killer medication. He was also the only treating physician to recommend surgery, which appellant refused even up to the time of trial. He agreed with Dr. Gutzman in his testimony that it would be unusual for a person in pain to be able to go for seven and one-half months without treatment. The independent medical examiner did not agree that future surgery was required, believing that certain tests, such as a discogram, must first be done before the necessity for surgery could be established. There was also disagreement from this physician with other findings by the orthopedic surgeon.
"The mental processes by which a jury determines the amount of damages is ordinarily not cognizable by an appellate court and where the law furnishes no precise legal measure for the recovery of damages, the amount to be awarded is largely discretionary with the jury." Terry v. Garcia, 800 S.W.2d 854, 859 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1990, writ denied).
The trier of fact has several alternatives available when confronted with conflicting evidence. It may believe one witness and disbelieve others. McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex.1986). It may resolve inconsistencies in the testimony of any witness. Id.; Benoit v. Wilson, 150 Tex. 273, 239 S.W.2d 792, 796 (1951). It may accept lay testimony over that of experts. McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d at 697.
Moreover, the trier of fact is afforded considerable discretion in evaluating opinion testimony on the issue of damages. Id. As a general rule, it is peculiarly within the province of the jury to weigh opinion evidence and the judgment of experts. Pilkington v. Kornell, 822 S.W.2d at 230. It is within the province of the jury to decide which expert witness should be credited. Id. The testimony of an expert on the issue of damages has only evidentiary significance and is not binding upon the jury. Novosad v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 546, 550 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1994, no writ).
The following statement in Pilkington applies here:
Applying these principles, we conclude that the jury in the present case could believe all or any part of the testimony of any witness and disregard all or any part of the testimony of any witness. Indeed, the jury is the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony.
Pilkington v. Kornell, 822 S.W.2d at 230. Therefore, with all the alternatives available to the jury, we can conclude they were not convinced by a preponderance of the evidence to award damages in any amount greater than that awarded. When we consider all the evidence, we cannot hold that the jury's award of damages is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. See Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d at 635. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury-
Appellant points out that the award of zero damages for future claims is divided in the jury charge from the past claims and should be considered separately. But, it is noted, both past and future claims are brought under one broad form question, and we have heretofore decided that question adversely to appellant's contentions.
Even if we were to assume the future claims to be a separate damage question with the jury considering each element of damages, we would conclude that the jury finding of "zero" for future damages, which included the elements of future pain and mental anguish and future medical care, is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. The first point of error is overruled.
The second point of error is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for new trial because it applied the wrong standard of review. The trial court stated in the order denying the motion for new trial.
Recognizing a citizen's right to a jury trial and the non-reviewable nature of the granting of a new trial, trial courts are charged with a responsibility to cautiously and prudently exercise their inherent power to disregard a jury's findings and grant a new trial. Trial courts do have a duty to objectively guard against an improper verdict based on prejudice or other improper motives.
It is not a simple question of whether the court disagrees with the jury, as is often the case. Rather, the determination must be made whether the jury's decision is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust given the uncontroverted and undisputed evidence. Even if the jury's verdict in the instant case appears inadequate, I believe it reflects a deliberate and conscientious decision by the jury based upon interpretation of the evidence.
Appellant's First Amended Motion for New Trial presented to the trial court both factual and legal insufficiency arguments, consequently, the court's Order states: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for New Trial is DENIED in its entirety. The legal insufficiency contentions were that the plaintiff had established the matters conclusively or as a matter of law. The denial of the motion for new trial thus applied to both the factual and legal insufficiency arguments.
However, on appeal only the factual insufficiency assignment is presented. Tex. R.Civ.P. 324(b)(3). It is appellant's contention that the trial court applied the wrong standard of review required for a factual insufficiency evaluation.
A trial court's refusal to grant a new trial is ordinarily binding on reviewing courts and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion. Fillinger v. Fuller, 746 S.W.2d 506, 508 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1988, no writ).
While there are numerous eases involving trial court actions when the motion for new trial is based on jury misconduct or newly discovered evidence, we can find no cases reversing a trial court's order because the trial court applied the wrong standard of review in denying the motion. The reason for the paucity is understandable: the appellate court must apply the correct standard of review. In this case appellant has requested, and the law requires, that this be done. Applying the necessary standard of review, noted in the discussion of point of error one, we have previously overruled the argument that the jury award of damages is so against the great' weight and preponderance of the evidence so as to be manifestly unjust.
Therefore, we cannot say the order of the trial court reflects that it applied the wrong standard of review as to the factual insufficiency complaint. On the other hand, even if it had, reversal would serve no purpose. For appellant presented the precise question of factual insufficiency for this court to determine. Point of error two is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
. Assigned to this case by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (Vernon 1988).