Opinion ID: 1834307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Proper Interpretation of the Damage Award

Text: There appears to be some disagreement among the parties as to the proper interpretation of the trial court's judgment which provides in pertinent part: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, ALANIE AISOLE, and against defendants, ALICE M. DEAN, INDIVIDUALLY, LYNN OAKS SCHOOL, INC. AND DOUGLAS DEAN,... jointly and in solido, in the true and full sum of SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE AND 44/100 ($74,939.44) DOLLARS, together with legal interest thereon from date of judicial demand until paid, and for all costs of these proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED there be judgment herein in favor of intervenor, INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and against defendants,ALICE M. DEAN, INDIVIDUALLY, LYNN OAKS SCHOOL, INC. AND DOUGLAS DEAN, ... jointly and in solido, in the true and full sum of FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE AND 54/100 ($47,183.54) DOLLARS, and this judgment is a first lien and privilege against the judgment herein rendered in favor of Alanie Aisole, to be paid by preference and priority out of the judgment rendered herein. (Emphasis added). Counsel for the defendants insists the effect of the emphasized language is to reduce the total award due and owing to the plaintiff to $27,755.90 ($74,939.44 minus $47,183.54). In response, plaintiffs' counsel maintains the Reasons for Judgment more accurately manifests the trial court's true intent. We agree with the plaintiffs that despite the emphasized language in the trial court's judgment, the trial court intended the judgment in favor of Insurance Company of North America to be over and above the damages awarded to Mrs. Aisole. The judgment in favor of the intervenor was composed of $2,472.75 in prior compensation benefits paid to the plaintiff and $44,710.79 in medical expenses paid on behalf of the plaintiff. [7] These amounts are not included in the itemized damages contained in the Reasons for Judgment which were awarded to Mrs. Aisole in the trial court judgment. [8] Medical expenses are an element of damages normally itemized and requires inclusion in the judgment. Accordingly, we surmise the trial court intended the intervenor's award to be in addition to the amount awarded to Mrs. Aisole. In reaching our conclusion, we place particular import on the inclusion of Past unpaid medical expenses in the itemized damages recoverable by the plaintiff. The trial court's failure to include past paid medical damages in the plaintiff's damage award further evidences the true intent behind the trial court's judgment.