## Facts

- Lana Averette was stopped in traffic when a truck driven by Adam Phillips struck her vehicle from behind.
- Phillips was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.; related defendants included Entergy and its insurer.
- Averette suffered spinal injuries and received treatment that included spinal steroid injections.
- At trial, Averette presented medical evidence that she would likely require long-term future care, including roughly twenty years of periodic spinal steroid injections.
- Averette’s evidence and argument framed the future treatment as a way to control or prevent future pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
- In closing argument, Averette’s counsel asked the jury to award future medical expenses but told the jury Averette was waiving damages for future pain and suffering because she believed the future treatments would allow her to live with minimal pain.
- The jury awarded $500,000 in future medical expenses and awarded no damages for future pain and suffering (and no future general damages).
- Defendants moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was legally inconsistent and that the future-medical award should be set aside because future medical expenses cannot exist without future pain and suffering.
- Averette opposed the motion; alternatively, she argued that if the verdict were found inconsistent, the remedy should be an award of future general damages rather than elimination of future medical expenses.
- The trial court denied the motion for new trial, and defendants appealed; Averette answered the appeal, renewing her alternative request.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury verdict awarding substantial future medical expenses but zero future pain-and-suffering (future general) damages is so inconsistent that it constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial or modification of the judgment.

## Decision

- The Louisiana First Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment and its denial of defendants’ motion for new trial.
- The court rejected defendants’ proposed rule that an award of future medical expenses necessarily requires an award of future pain and suffering.
- The court held that, on this record, the jury’s award of $500,000 in future medical expenses with zero future general damages was not so inconsistent as to amount to an abuse of discretion.
- Because the verdict was upheld, the court also declined Averette’s alternative request to add future general damages.

## Legal Principles

- A jury’s award of medical expenses with no general damages is not automatically invalid; the reviewing court asks whether the combination is so inconsistent as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
- In reviewing damage awards and rulings on a new-trial motion, appellate courts give substantial deference to the trier of fact and the trial court, intervening only for a clear abuse of discretion.
- Future medical expenses must be supported by evidence that the treatment is medically necessary and more probable than not to be incurred.
- Special damages (such as future medical expenses) and general damages (such as future pain and suffering) are distinct categories; a jury may reasonably award future medical costs aimed at preventing or minimizing future pain without also awarding future pain damages, depending on the proof and how the claim is presented at trial.
- A party’s trial position and express requests to the jury matter when evaluating claimed inconsistency; a verdict that matches the plaintiff’s damages request is less likely to be viewed as irrational or outside the range of reasonable factfinding.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict awarding $500,000 in future medical expenses and zero future pain-and-suffering damages because Louisiana law does not impose a categorical link between those awards and, given Averette’s express waiver and trial theory that future treatment would keep future pain minimal, the verdict was not so inconsistent as to be an abuse of discretion.


Averette v. Phillips, 185 So. 3d 16 (2015)