Opinion ID: 662744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Med-Therapy's Motion for a New Trial on Damages

Text: 8 The district court did not err in denying Med-Therapy's motion for a new trial on damages. In Walker v. Crigler, 976 F.2d 900, 903 (4th Cir.1992), we held that a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial should be reversed only when abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court is shown in its determination that'[t]he jury's verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence....'  9 In denying Med-Therapy's motion for a new trial on damages, the judge held that the jury had the prerogative to disregard the uncontroverted testimony of Med-Therapy's expert witness. In addition, the judge found that [t]he jury could certainly have concluded, consistent with the evidence presented at trial, that the stock of [National] was not worthless; and/or that Med-Therapy failed to mitigate whatever damages it may have suffered. 6 The judge continued, What is obvious to the Court is that Med-Therapy, having opted for a jury trial on a rather complex securities dispute (as it is entitled to do), and having failed to 'ring the bell' with the jury, now wishes to have a second go at it. Because the evidence adduced at trial supports the trial court's conclusions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial on the damages issue.