## Facts

- Milva Ortega caused a car accident in which Blanchard Belony fractured his neck.
- Belony wore a halo device to immobilize his head and neck for about three months.
- While wearing the halo, Belony experienced pain and difficulty sleeping.
- After three months, the halo was removed and Belony’s fracture had substantially healed.
- Belony continued to report only mild neck pain, and his treating doctors did not recommend further treatment at that time.
- About one year after the accident, Belony sued Ortega.
- Around the time he filed suit, Belony saw an orthopedic surgeon who observed the fracture was almost completely healed.
- Belony chose a series of neck injections that nearly eliminated his pain.
- By trial, Belony could perform normal daily activities and did not plan to have surgery.
- The jury awarded Belony $32,971 in past and future medical expenses and $0 for past and future pain and suffering.
- The trial court found the zero pain-and-suffering award inconsistent and directed the jury to reconsider that element of damages.
- On reconsideration, the jury awarded Belony $5,000 for pain and suffering.
- The trial judge concluded the $5,000 award “shocked the conscience” and entered judgment increasing pain-and-suffering damages to $250,000.
- Ortega appealed the additur order.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by granting additur that increased the jury’s pain-and-suffering award from $5,000 to $250,000?
2. Under the governing standard, was the jury’s modest pain-and-suffering award supported by the evidence such that it could not be disturbed by the trial court?

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the order granting additur.
- The court remanded with directions to reinstate the jury’s verdict, including the $5,000 pain-and-suffering award.

## Legal Principles

- Pain-and-suffering damages have no fixed standard of measurement and are primarily for the jury to decide.
- A jury’s non-economic damages award is presumed valid and should not be set aside if supported by the evidence.
- The test for adequacy of a verdict is whether a jury of reasonable persons could have returned the verdict on the record presented.
- A trial court may not act as an additional juror and replace the jury’s valuation of non-economic damages with the judge’s preferred number.
- Additur under Florida law is not proper merely because the trial judge strongly disagrees with the amount; it requires a record showing the award is legally inadequate under the reasonable-jury standard.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence showed that Belony’s neck fracture substantially healed, his remaining pain was mild and largely resolved with injections, and he had no significant functional limits by trial, a reasonable jury could award full medical expenses while assigning only modest pain-and-suffering damages. The trial court therefore erred in increasing the jury’s $5,000 award to $250,000, and the appellate court reinstated the jury’s verdict.


Ortega v. Belony, 185 So. 3d 538 (2015)