## Facts

- A kitchen grease fire injured Bert Wainwright; afterward, his minor son, John Scott Wainwright, showed stress symptoms and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
- John Scott was referred to a child psychiatrist, who prescribed Prozac at 5 mg once daily.
- The prescription was filled at a Walgreen pharmacy, where the pharmacist mislabeled the dosage as 20 mg once daily.
- John Scott was given a 20 mg dose; his parents claimed his behavior rapidly worsened, including aggression, threats of self-harm, and violence.
- When the father called Walgreen to confirm the dosage, an employee stated 20 mg was correct without checking the original prescription.
- The next day, the parents learned from the prescribing doctor that the dosage was four times too high; John Scott was taken to a hospital for observation and released the following day.
- The family sued the pharmacist and Walgreen, alleging the mislabeling and resulting overdose caused John Scott’s acute behavioral episode and related damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a factfinder commits legal error by awarding medical expenses (special damages) for a plaintiff’s injury but awarding no general damages after finding defendant fault and causation.
2. Whether a zero general-damages award is necessarily inconsistent with an award of medical expenses, permitting an appellate court to modify the verdict.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the jury verdict.
- The court held there is no per se legal error when a factfinder awards medical expenses but no general damages.
- The court found the jury’s award of $1,500 in medical expenses and $0 in general damages was not facially inconsistent and could be reconciled with the evidence.
- The court concluded the court of appeal improperly substituted its judgment for the jury’s by increasing medical expenses and awarding $40,000 in general damages.

## Legal Principles

- Damage awards fall within the trier of fact’s broad discretion; appellate courts may not reweigh evidence absent a legally erroneous or unreasonable verdict.
- An award of medical expenses may reflect a finding that evaluation or limited treatment was reasonable and caused by the defendant’s fault, without requiring a finding of compensable pain, suffering, or other nonpecuniary loss.
- There is no automatic rule that special damages for medical expenses mandate an accompanying award of general damages, even where the asserted injury includes objective manifestations.
- A verdict awarding specials but denying general damages is not legal error if the result can be reasonably harmonized with conflicting evidence on the existence, extent, or causation of general damages.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that awarding medical expenses while denying general damages is not automatically inconsistent or legally erroneous; where the evidence supports the jury’s ability to separate special from general damages, appellate courts must defer and may not impose a general-damages award.


Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So. 2d 70 (La. 2000)