## Facts

- Mary D. Gleason was injured when Gary Donald Kueker rear-ended her vehicle while she was stopped at a traffic light.
- Mary Gleason sued Kueker for negligence and personal-injury damages; her husband, David Gleason, sued for loss of consortium.
- At trial, Dr. Jennifer Rasmussen (a chiropractor) testified the crash caused Mary a 32% whole-body impairment, her condition would worsen, and she would eventually need surgery.
- Dr. Rasmussen released Mary after fourteen visits because she was unable to provide further help.
- Physical therapist Michael Kaus testified Mary would need ongoing physical therapy.
- Mary testified that in the roughly four years after the collision, her medical expenses totaled $17,607.59.
- The plaintiffs did not present an economist or other damages witness to calculate a discount rate or a present-value figure.
- Mary estimated future medical expenses at roughly $130,000–$132,000 by using her past annual medical costs and multiplying by a life expectancy of about thirty years.
- The jury returned a verdict totaling $299,324.84 for Mary, including $126,400 for future medical expenses.
- Kueker moved for a new trial and, alternatively, remittitur, arguing the future-medical-expense award showed the jury failed to reduce future damages to present value.
- The district court denied both motions, and Kueker appealed, challenging only the future-medical-expense component and related post-trial rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the future medical-expense award required a new trial or remittitur because the jury allegedly failed to reduce future damages to present value.
2. Whether the closeness of the $126,400 award to Mary Gleason’s rough projection of future expenses was enough to show the jury disregarded the present-value instruction.

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the jury was properly instructed that future economic losses must be reduced to present value and was given a definition of “present value.”
- The court found no record basis to conclude the jury ignored the instruction or used an incorrect measure of damages.
- The court concluded that the numerical similarity between the jury’s award and Mary’s estimate did not overcome the presumption that the jury followed the law.
- The court therefore upheld the denial of a new trial and remittitur and left the $126,400 future-medical-expense award intact.

## Legal Principles

- Future economic damages must be reduced to present value; “present value” may be defined as a sum paid now that, with interest at a reasonable rate of return, will compensate for future economic losses.
- Iowa does not require a single formula for present-value reduction; the fact-finder may make the reduction based on the evidence and reasonable inferences, including the rate fairly expected from reasonably safe investments.
- A jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions; an award is not set aside absent a showing the jury applied the wrong legal measure of damages.
- A damages award’s resemblance to a party’s estimate, standing alone, does not prove the jury failed to discount future losses to present value.
- Review of the denial of a new trial or remittitur is generally for abuse of discretion, but when the claim is that the jury failed to follow the law, appellate review is for legal error.

## Conclusion

Because the jury was instructed to reduce future medical expenses to present value and the record did not show the jury disregarded that instruction, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a new trial and remittitur and upheld the $126,400 award for Mary Gleason’s future medical expenses.


Gleason v. Kueker, 641 N.W.2d 553 (2001)