Court Opinion

ID: 991554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:38:43.70638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:33.713654
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RUSSELL JUNIOR DIEHL,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-1361

BRYAN E. SAUBLE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
William G. Connelly, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-94-2673-S)

Submitted: February 13, 1997

Decided: February 27, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael L. Sandul, LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT GRAHAM FIORE,
Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. W. Barry Wraga, Kensington,
Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Brian Lee Sauble appeals from a jury verdict requiring him to pay
$20,900 in future medical expenses to the plaintiff in a civil diversity
car accident case. We affirm.

Sauble claims that the amount awarded for future medical expenses
was in excess of that established by the plaintiff's expert and there-
fore not supported by reasonable certainty. He does not attack the evi-
dence by which future injury justifying future medical expenses was
demonstrated, and we therefore express no opinion as to the suffi-
ciency of that evidence. Under Maryland law if a jury believes the
plaintiff's expert as to a condition which will result in future damages,
the amount to be awarded is a question for the jury. DiLeo v. Nugent,
592 A.2d 1126, 1135 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), cert. granted, 599 A.2d
90 (Md. 1991). Further, the question of whether a verdict is either
excessive or inadequate is one for the trial court, in the exercise of its
sound discretion, to decide on a motion for a new trial. Kujawa v. Bal-
timore Transit Co., 167 A.2d 96, 102 (Md. 1961). Sauble did not
move for a new trial, but rather moved for the verdict to be made to
conform to the evidence and to the amount claimed in discovery. We
find nothing in the material submitted by the parties which suggests
an abuse of discretion in the denial of this motion and accordingly we
affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2