Opinion ID: 1203361
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether There Is an Evidentiary Basis for the Jury's Verdict

Text: The crux of Richey's argument is that she suffered at least some damages as a result of the accident and that the evidence suggesting otherwise is so completely lacking or is so slight and unconvincing as to make the jury's verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust. [6] The question is a close one because there is a plethora of conflicting testimony concerning the nature and extent of Richey's lower back injury. On the one hand, Richey testified that she immediately experienced lower back pain about which she told Oen and Officer Kirkley. Oen testified, however, that she never said she was in pain, but that she felt a little quirk in her lower back. Officer Kirkley testified that he did not recall Richey complaining of any injuries. He further testified that he coded the accident for no injuries and would not have done so unless the parties had indicated that they were not injured. Richey testified that she called Dr. Nordstrom on the day of the accident and visited him in his office the following day. Doctor Nordstrom testified that he diagnosed her as suffering from an acutely traumatized lower back disorder and referred her to a physician who immediately prescribed muscle relaxants and pain medication. Richey testified that although she took the medication, she still could not sleep, stand, or lie down for any length of time without experiencing pain. Yet Drs. Nordstrom, Cain, Dittrich, and Pervier testified that Richey suffered from a degenerative lower back condition which may have resulted from several previous accidents. In fact, as recently as two months before the accident, Dr. Nordstrom had treated Richey for pain in her lower back. Finally, Dr. Pervier testified that he did not believe that the accident caused any of Richey's injuries. Oen argues here that Richey's lack of candor with respect to her preexisting injuries and the events surrounding the accident was a factor in causing the jury to find no causation. The jury heard her give the following testimony: Q. Have you had any other falls prior to the accident that we are here for today? A. No. Q. Have you ever had any prior back pains? A. No. She admitted to seeing Dr. Nordstrom and stated: Q. And, were you seeing him for some back pains during those times? A. If that is what he has, than [sic] that's what I was seeing him for. ..... Q. Did you see any other doctors for back pain? A. No. Q. Have you ever had any other prior leg pains? A. No. Given these inconsistent and inaccurate statements and her inability to identify any damage or repair to her vehicle from the accident, the jury had the opportunity to disregard or take lightly her testimony on the issue of causation. See Innes v. Beauchene, 370 P.2d 174, 177 (Alaska 1962) (trier of fact may observe witness demeanor and choose to disbelieve even unrefuted testimony, especially where the testimony contains patent omissions and inconsistencies). Construing the conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to Oen, as we must do, we are unable to say that the evidence indicating that Richey suffered no damages is so completely lacking as to make the jury's finding unreasonable or unjust. Buoy v. ERA Helicopters, Inc., 771 P.2d 439, 447 (Alaska 1989); Hayes v. Xerox Corp., 718 P.2d 929, 933 (Alaska 1989). Indeed, this evidence derives directly from at least three different persons (Officer Kirkley, Dr. Pervier, and Oen) and indirectly from other evidence presented by Oen as to Richey's prior medical history. Nor can we say that this evidence is slight and unconvincing. Both Officer Kirkley and Oen testified  in direct contradiction to Richey's testimony  that Richey never stated or indicated she was in pain during the period immediately following the accident. Doctor Pervier testified that Richey's condition was not related to the accident. The jury was asked, in effect, to weigh this testimony and other evidence of Richey's prior medical history against the testimony of Dr. Nordstrom and Richey. A careful reading of Dr. Nordstrom's testimony, however, reveals that he stated only that Richey suffered an acute traumatization of her lower back. He neither stated nor suggested that her condition was a result of the accident. In the face of conflicting testimony, the jury determined that Richey suffered no injuries as a result of the accident. Jurors are entitled to disbelieve a witness or otherwise discount a witness's testimony. Bailey v. Lenord, 625 P.2d 849, 856 (Alaska 1981). Such credibility determinations made by the jury are generally left undisturbed by this court on review. Jackson v. White, 556 P.2d 530, 532 n. 4 (Alaska 1976). On the record before us, we cannot say that the evidence supporting the jury's conclusion is so slight or unconvincing as to render the verdict either unfair or unreasonable. Accordingly, the superior court did not err in denying Richey's motion for a new trial. AFFIRMED.