Opinion ID: 2372532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Verdict on the Parents' Claim

Text: The parents claim that the jury verdict was inadequate in that, despite awarding future medical costs for the time after Rita M. Vincent reaches age 18, no award was given for her economic costs before age 18 (past costs and future pre-age-18 medical costs). Both sides concede that the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. See Long v. Hooker, 443 S.W.2d 178, 182 (Mo.1969). While the evidence supporting plaintiffs' alleged damages was uncontested, it was not stipulated. The burden of proof was plaintiffs'. As such, the jury could believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence supporting the plaintiffs' alleged damages. Under § 537.068 RSMo Supp.1991, the court may have had a duty to increase the verdict to cover proven losses, but the only losses that were arguably proventhose for which bills were submittedcame to less than $100,000. Any verdict for Rita K. Vincent and Robert A. Vincent would have been credited by their settlement with NME Hospitals. § 538.230. As this settlement exceeds proven damages, any error by the trial court in refusing to order an additur is harmless error. Therefore, the judgment for plaintiffs Rita K. Vincent and Robert A. Vincent is affirmed. As the settlement with the parents was credited against the verdict for Rita M. Vincent, however, the failure to reduce that credit by those medical expenses that were proven is not harmless error with respect to her judgment. Thus, on remand, the circuit court shall reduce the credit against Rita M. Vincent's verdict by any past and future pre-age-18 medical expenses that were actually proven at trial.