Opinion ID: 807056
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Re-examination Clause

Text: One final issue remains. In its itemization of damages, the jury returned $15,000 in compensation for “past medical expenses.” After trial, Roman sought to have the judgment amended to award $168,804.22 instead. The basis for the request was that without objection Roman had entered into evidence copies of medical records and bills totaling that sum. Without cross-examination from Western, three doctors – an orthopedist, plastic surgeon, and wound therapist – had explained the treatment in those records, and testified that the care had related to the July 10, 2007 accident and was medically necessary. Given these facts, and that at no time had Western disputed the treatment or its value during trial, the court found that the jury had no valid basis in 21 No. 10-31271 evidence for its $15,000 sum, as opposed to the full measure of medical costs. The court modified the judgment to reflect the $168,804.22 and correctly reduced it according to the jury’s comparative fault assignment. Western argues this modification was impermissible additur that violated the Seventh Amendment’s Re-examination Clause: [N]o fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. U.S. Const. amend. VII. Trial courts have the power to grant a new trial when the verdict is “against the weight of the evidence.” Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 433 (1996) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Implicit in the court’s new-trial power is the prerogative, when damages are too great, to instead secure agreement from the “plaintiff to remit excessive damages.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 486-87 (1935). As a general matter, the Supreme Court has held that this “remittur withstands Seventh Amendment attack,” while proposing the opposite bargain, known as “additur, [is] unconstitutional.” Gasperini, 518 U.S. at 433. Nonetheless, “[t]he constitutional rule against additur is not violated in a case where the jury ha[s] properly determined liability and there is no valid dispute as to the amount of damages. In such a case the court is in effect simply granting summary judgment on the question of damages.” Moreau v. Oppenheim, 663 F.2d 1300, 1311 (5th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This principle is firmly recognized across the circuits.10 The district court thus correctly concluded, under these facts, that this exception applies. Id.; see also Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 170 F.3d 264, 272-73 (2d 10 See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 117 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Courts recognize an exception to Dimick where the jury has found the underlying liability and there is no genuine issue as to the correct amount of damages.”); Decato v. Travelers Ins. Co., 379 F.2d 796, 798 (1st Cir. 1967) (similar). 22 No. 10-31271 Cir. 1999) (holding no Re-examination Clause violation when, in products liability action, district court added cost of a hospital bill submitted to jury to total damage award). These instances of uncontested damages “do not technically involve additur, because the correct figure is divined as a matter of law, and the plaintiff is not made to choose between the increased damage award and a new trial.” 12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.13[2] at 59-80. We AFFIRM the judgment on the jury verdict as modified by the district court. 23