Kevin Bryant v. Robert Lee Rimrodt and Geico General Insurance Company , 872 N.W.2d 366 ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 13–1883
Filed December 11, 2015
KEVIN BRYANT,
Appellant,
vs.
ROBERT LEE RIMRODT and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants,
and
LORI LYNN PARR,
Appellee.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K.
Thornhill, Judge.
Plaintiff seeks a new trial based on an allegedly inconsistent and
inadequate jury verdict awarding medical specials but only one dollar for
pain and suffering for injuries suffered in a car accident. DECISION OF
COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT
REVERSED; CASE REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES.
James K. Weston II of Tom Riley Law Firm, Iowa City, for
appellant.
2
Thomas B. Read and Stephanie A. Legislador of Crawford, Sullivan,
Read & Roemerman, PC, Cedar Rapids, for appellee Lori Lynn Parr.
3
WATERMAN, Justice.
In this appeal, we must decide whether the district court should
have granted a new trial based on an allegedly inconsistent and
inadequate jury verdict in a personal injury action arising from a motor
vehicle accident. The jury initially awarded the plaintiff passenger nearly
$17,000 in past medical expenses, but zero for pain and suffering. All
parties agreed that the verdict was inconsistent, and the jury was
instructed to resume deliberations to resolve the inconsistency. The jury
then awarded one dollar for pain and suffering but left the rest of the
verdict unchanged. The jury was discharged after no party requested
further deliberations. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied,
and we transferred his appeal to the court of appeals, which affirmed,
concluding “the one dollar award remedied the inconsistency, if any”
because “[t]he cause and extent of injury were clearly disputed, and [the
plaintiff] was not credible.” We granted the plaintiff’s application for
further review.
On our review, we conclude the plaintiff preserved error through
his objections to the verdict and motion for new trial without asking the
court to send the jury back for a third round of deliberations to address
the inconsistency. We hold that the award of one dollar for pain and
suffering was inconsistent with the award of nearly $17,000 for medical
expenses incurred for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. That
inconsistency requires a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of
the court of appeals, reverse the district court judgment, and remand the
case for a new trial on damages.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On the evening of November 15, 2007, Lori Parr test drove a used
SUV with Kevin Bryant, a salesperson at a Pat McGrath auto dealership
4
in Cedar Rapids. Bryant directed Parr to drive down Edgewood Road so
she could experience city driving in the SUV. Parr made an illegal left
turn, and the SUV was struck on the passenger side by a car driven by
Robert Rimrodt. Bryant hit his head and briefly lost consciousness.
Both vehicles were totaled.
Bryant was taken immediately after the accident to the Mercy
Medical Center emergency room in Cedar Rapids. The emergency room
doctors noted that Bryant reported pain in his lower back, neck, and
right leg. The doctors were unable to find any physiological explanation
for his complaints. Bryant was prescribed pain medication and
discharged the same evening. However, Bryant failed to return to work
that month due to his complaints of accident-related pain.
On November 24, Bryant went to the emergency room at Mercy
Hospital in Iowa City, complaining of numbness and tingling in his left
arm and severe headaches. A doctor examined Bryant but found no
physiological explanation for his reported symptoms. The doctor told
Bryant that he could expect to heal from the accident within three to four
weeks.
Three days later, Bryant saw his personal physician, Dr. Kirk
Gieswein. Bryant described his neck and back pain, headaches, and
trouble sleeping. Bryant also complained of intermittent blurred vision.
Dr. Gieswein prescribed Maxalt and Nortriptyline for his migraines and
to help him sleep. Bryant had several follow-up appointments with
Dr. Gieswein, and he continued to complain of headaches. Dr. Gieswein
diagnosed Bryant with posttraumatic headaches.
On December 10, Bryant began seeing a physician chosen by his
employer, Dr. Henri Cuddihy, for his neck and low-back pain. Bryant
also complained of headaches and blurred vision. Dr. Cuddihy
5
authorized Bryant to return to work with a ten-pound lifting restriction.
Bryant resumed working at the auto dealership on December 12.
Dr. Cuddihy eventually removed the lifting restriction and cleared Bryant
to work without restrictions. Based on Bryant’s subjective complaints of
back pain, Dr. Cuddihy assigned him a five percent impairment of the
whole person and referred him to an ophthalmologist and a physical
therapist.
The ophthalmologist, Dr. Jeffery Maassen, prescribed bifocals,
which Bryant said improved his vision and headaches. Bryant also saw
Patrick Cornelius, a physical therapist. Bryant’s goal for the physical
therapy was to relieve his pain. Bryant told Cornelius that he had
constant headaches and moderate neck and low-back pain. Cornelius
observed Bryant had a limited range of motion in his back and neck.
Cornelius designed a home exercise program for Bryant and scheduled
appointments for two to three times per week. Bryant did some of the
exercises but not as often as suggested. Bryant reported that he
improved, but he missed work on January 17 and 18, 2008, due to his
complaints of pain. After several months of physical therapy, Bryant
exhibited full range of motion in his back and neck.
On February 27, Bryant sought treatment from a chiropractor,
Dr. Christine Bowman. During the initial consultation, Bryant reported
he had severe neck and low-back pain, numbness in his left leg, and
headaches. Dr. Bowman conducted an orthopedic examination and
observed a restricted range of motion. She diagnosed Bryant with
sciatica, degeneration of lumbar disc, degeneration of cervical disc, and
pain in the thoracic spine. Dr. Bowman recommended Bryant continue
chiropractic treatments consisting of manual spinal adjustments.
Bryant responded well to the treatments initially, but later Dr. Bowman
6
reported his “prognosis is guarded because he is experiencing mixed
results.” Bryant said the adjustments helped him manage his pain, and
he continued with this treatment throughout the trial.
On November 5, 2009, Bryant filed this lawsuit against Parr 1 and
Rimrodt, alleging their negligence caused his personal injuries. 2 Parr
and Rimrodt countered that Bryant was at fault for directing Parr to
make the left turn and conducting a distracting demonstration of the
SUV’s features during the test drive. Bryant’s jury trial began July 8,
2013, forty-four months after he filed suit.
Bryant was age fifty-five at trial, and according to his trial
testimony, the injuries from the accident over six years earlier
permanently harmed his health and altered his life. He claimed that he
did not go to the doctor or use prescription drugs before the accident.
Previously, Bryant had played football at the University of Iowa and had
continued his active lifestyle after graduating. Bryant had regularly lifted
weights, swam, or jogged before the accident. Bryant became curious
about chiropractic care after he had a football-related injury to his ankle
and was treated by a chiropractor four times. He went twice after his
football injury and twice in 2007.
After the accident, Bryant testified he continued to suffer from
headaches and pain in his leg, lower back, shoulders, neck, and left
hand. His blood pressure rose, and he gained weight. His injuries
1Betweenthe accident and trial, Lori Parr married and changed her name to Lori
Springsteen. For convenience and to align this opinion with the parties’ briefs, we refer
to her as Parr.
2Bryant also sued GEICO General Insurance Company under its uninsured and
underinsured motorist provisions because Bryant claimed his damages would exceed
Parr and Rimrodt’s insurance policies. GEICO’s claims were severed before trial and
are not at issue in this appeal.
7
decreased his ability to perform everyday tasks, such as vacuuming,
washing dishes, putting on clothes, or sitting for extended periods. He
slept poorly due to difficulty finding a good sleeping position.
Bryant claimed he lost earning capacity because his ability to
concentrate diminished after the accident. Bryant said he wanted to
change jobs because he feared test drives. Bryant explored a new career
selling insurance based on his past experience in that field but gave up
because he felt he lacked the concentration needed to complete the
testing required for an insurance license.
Defense counsel sought to impeach Bryant on cross-examination
in several ways. Defense counsel introduced Bryant’s sworn
interrogatory answers denying any chiropractic treatment before the
accident, together with evidence that Bryant, in fact, had twenty-three
chiropractic manipulations from Dr. Bowman in 2006. Bryant testified
at trial that Dr. Bowman treated his “minor” back pain, yet Bryant had
indicated on his 2006 client intake form that he had a history of
backaches, headaches, and being “locked on all fours.” Defense counsel
also showed that Bryant worked as a car salesman for about a year after
the accident despite his alleged anxiety over test drives.
A defense expert, Dr. Thomas Hughes, testified by deposition that
he reviewed Bryant’s medical records and conducted an independent
medical examination. Dr. Hughes opined that Bryant exaggerated his
symptoms. He found no physiological explanations for Bryant’s
complaints of pain. Dr. Hughes disagreed with how Dr. Cuddihy arrived
at the five percent impairment rating and concluded Bryant was not
impaired. Dr. Hughes conceded he had no reason to doubt that Bryant
was injured when he hit his head during the collision on November 15.
8
The defendants also challenged the need for the chiropractic
treatment Bryant received. Dr. Dan Futch, a chiropractor who had
reviewed Bryant’s records, testified Bryant’s treatments were excessive.
Dr. Futch conceded Bryant had suffered a head injury and minor injuries
to his neck and thoracic and lumbar spine in the accident. But
Dr. Futch opined Bryant exaggerated his neck pain and his leg pain was
unrelated to the accident. Dr. Futch described chiropractic adjustments
as “aggressive” and “skillfully controlled violence” that is generally
intolerable for persons with serious back problems. Dr. Futch said the
fact that Bryant was able to undergo over one hundred spinal
adjustments suggested that Bryant’s back injury was not serious.
Moreover, Dr. Futch testified that twenty-four treatment sessions provide
the maximum benefit that may be derived from chiropractic adjustments,
so Bryant did not need the 115 adjustments he actually received.
Defense counsel also noted inconsistencies in what Bryant told his
doctors. For example, when Bryant went to the emergency room on
November 24, 2007, he denied having any neck pain. Further, when
Bryant first went to Dr. Cuddihy, he did not complain of numbness or
tingling in any of his extremities. The defendants, however, presented no
evidence that Bryant was uninjured in the accident.
In closing argument, Bryant’s counsel asked the jury to award a
total of $544,824, as follows:
Past medical expenses 3 $33,408
Future medical expenses $77,340
Loss of time–earnings 4 $11,076
3This included $18,732 for chiropractic treatment.
4Bryant arrived at this amount from his workers’ compensation award. The
defendants disputed this amount because $9502 of his award was designated for the
9
Loss of future earning capacity $75,000
Past pain and suffering $66,000
Future pain and suffering $66,000
Loss of full mind and body—past $66,000
Loss of full mind and body—future $150,000
Bryant’s counsel explained that insurance had paid $20,039 in medical
bills that must be reimbursed, so Bryant would not personally recover
any lower award. Both defense counsel agreed that if the jury reached
the issue of damages, it would be appropriate to award $8237 for these
medical expenses:
Chiropractic treatments $1440
Area Ambulance $749
Physical therapy $4021
Radiology $276
UI Healthworks $837
Walmart Pharmacy $33
Radiologic Medical Services $406
Cedar Neurologic Surgeons $475
Parr’s counsel conceded it also would be appropriate to award all of the
claimed medical expenses for Mercy Medical, Mercy Hospital, Mercy
Services, and Linn County ER Medicine bringing the total to $16,219.
The jury was instructed that “[t]o establish his claim against [Parr],
Plaintiff must prove [Parr’s] . . . . negligence was a cause of damage to the
plaintiff [and] the nature and extent of damage.” The jury was instructed
as follows regarding causation:
The conduct of a party is a cause of injury when the
injury would not have happened except for the conduct.
There can be more than one cause of an injury. When two or
more separate acts are so related to the injury that their
combined action, when viewed as a whole, is the cause of the
injury without which the injury would not occur, then each
act may be a cause.
Instruction No. 12.
______________________________
five percent partial disability assigned by Dr. Cuddihy. Workers’ compensation paid
Bryant $1574 in lost wages.
10
If you find plaintiff had a pre-existing medical
condition before this incident and this condition was
aggravated by this incident causing further suffering or
disability then he is entitled to recover damages caused by
the aggravation. He is not entitled to recover for any physical
ailment or disability which existed before this incident or for
any injuries or damages which he now has which were not
caused by either defendant’s actions.
Instruction No. 29 (emphasis added).
The jury instructions on damages stated in part:
If you find Kevin Bryant is entitled to recover damages,
you shall consider the following items:
Past Medical Expenses. The reasonable cost of
necessary hospital charges, doctor charges, prescriptions
and other medical services from the date of injury to the
present time.
In determining the reasonable cost of necessary
hospital charges, doctor charges, prescriptions and other
medical services, you may consider the amount actually
paid, or any other evidence of what is reasonable and proper
for such medical expense.
....
Loss Of time - Earnings. The reasonable value of lost
wages from the date of injury to the present time.
....
Loss Of Full Mind And Body - Past. Loss of function
of the mind and body from the date of injury to the present
time. Loss of mind and body is the inability of a particular
part of the mind and body to function in a normal manner.
....
Physical And Mental Pain And Suffering - Past.
Physical and mental pain and suffering from the date of
injury to the present time.
Physical pain and suffering may include, but is not
limited to, bodily suffering or discomfort.
Mental pain and suffering may include, but is not
limited to, mental anguish or loss of enjoyment of life.
....
The amount you assess for physical and mental pain
and suffering in the past and future, future earning capacity,
loss of function of the mind and body in the past and future
cannot be measured by any exact or mathematical standard.
You must use your sound judgment based upon an impartial
11
consideration of the evidence. Your judgment must not be
exercised arbitrarily, or out of sympathy or prejudice, for or
against the parties. The amount you assess for any item of
damage must not exceed the amount caused by a party as
proved by the evidence.
A party cannot recover duplicate damages. Do not
allow amounts awarded under one item of damage to be
included in any amount awarded under another item of
damage. The amounts, if any, you find for each of the above
items will be used to answer the questions on the verdict
form.
Instruction No. 26 (emphasis added).
The jury returned a special verdict finding Parr ninety-five percent
at fault and Bryant five percent at fault. No fault was assigned to the
other driver, Rimrodt. The jury’s verdict on damages was as follows:
1. Past medical expenses $16,937.53
2. Future medical expenses $0
3. Loss of time—earnings $1,574.66
4. Loss of future earning capacity $0
5. Past pain and suffering $0
6. Loss of full mind and body—past $0
7. Loss of full mind and body—future $0
TOTAL (add the separate items of damage) $18,512.19
The presiding judge was on military leave when the jury finished
deliberations, so a different judge received the verdict. All parties agreed
that the court should send the jury back for further deliberations with an
instruction that an award of past medical expenses required an award
for past pain and suffering. Thereafter, the jury returned a second
verdict that awarded one dollar for past pain and suffering, but left the
other amounts unchanged:
1. Past medical expenses $16,937.53
2. Future medical expenses $0
3. Loss of time—earnings $1,574.66
4. Loss of future earning capacity $0
5. Past pain and suffering $ 01.00
6. Loss of full mind and body—past $0
7. Loss of full mind and body—future $0
TOTAL (add the separate items of damage) $18,513.19
12
The court, by teleconference, informed trial counsel of the new verdict.
Bryant’s counsel responded as follows:
Obviously, it’s one dollar, so that would be my opinion.
Inadequate.
And I guess my position is, first, that based on the —
you know, we sent it back to them, they gave this award of
one dollar.
And, again, we submit it’s really inadequate given the
evidence, that at this time we would discharge the jury and
set the case for a new trial but, in the alternative, would
request a further instruction telling the jury that their award
for pain and suffering is inadequate given the evidence, and
that they need to — You can’t tell them what to give, but you
can tell them that it’s not adequate and that they need to do
more.
Defense counsel argued the jury’s award complied with the instruction to
award damages for pain and suffering and objected to sending the jury
back for further deliberations. Bryant’s counsel responded that the court
should order a new trial because the jury’s award of damages was
inadequate and the verdict was inconsistent:
[The chiropractic treatment and physical therapy], the
evidence is clear, were performed to assist Mr. Bryant with
his pain and for the relief of pain and, therefore, it is
inconsistent for the jury to make the award for those medical
expenses and others, including evidence of medical expenses
for pain medication, without an award for pain and suffering
in an amount significantly greater than what was awarded
by the jury. It’s — It is inconsistent.
And where a finding of the jury is not supported by
evidence, a new trial must be granted. . . .
. . . And that an inadequate award of damages is
grounds for a new trial. . . .
And for those reasons, especially, again, because both
Defendants have — are resisting the idea of sending another
instruction to the jury, Plaintiff would at this time request
that the jury be discharged and that the Court set this case
for a new trial on the issue of damages.
The judge directed counsel for Bryant and for Parr to come to court for
further discussions on how to handle the verdict.
13
When counsel for Bryant and for Parr arrived an hour later, they
agreed the jury should not be told to deliberate a third time:
MR. WESTON: I think at this time, Your Honor, given
the response that we’ve had from the jury and some
additional time to think about it and the discussion that
we’ve had with Your Honor and Mr. Read, I think it does
make sense at this point not to send it back again due to the
inconsistency of the verdict and that they’ve been given a
chance to remedy that and they weren’t able to do so.
....
And I — I understand the Court, obviously, because
Your Honor was not there for the trial and hasn’t seen the
exhibits and didn’t hear any testimony, you’re not familiar
with the findings of the case, but just our position would be
that it’s not possible to reconcile the award of medical
expenses that was made with a verdict of zero or one dollar
or anything like that for either pain and suffering or body
function.
THE COURT: Mr. Read?
MR. READ: The jury has now been given two chances
to make its decision on the issue of pain and suffering, and I
don’t think that a third would be productive at this point. I
think the Court should accept the verdict form as is and
proceed.
Accordingly, the court discharged the jury.
Bryant filed a motion for a new trial alleging the verdict was
inadequate and inconsistent. Parr resisted. The judge who had presided
over the trial, now back from military leave, presided over the hearing on
the motion for new trial. The district court denied the motion in a ruling
that focused on the disputed nature of Bryant’s injuries:
After considering all the evidence presented at trial,
the Court finds the jury’s award of $1.00 for pain and
suffering is not inadequate and does not warrant ordering a
new trial on the issue. The cause and extent of Plaintiff’s
injury was highly disputed at trial. The jury received
contradictory evidence, including Plaintiff’s own testimony,
that Plaintiff had a pre-existing medical condition at the time
of the accident. The jury also received evidence that Plaintiff
had received the same or similar chiropractic treatment pre-
accident that was also deemed necessary post-accident.
Based upon this evidence, it was reasonable for the jury,
14
weighing the credibility of both the Plaintiff and the medical
experts, to conclude Plaintiff failed to establish his claimed
pain and suffering damages were caused by the instant
accident. Furthermore, the Court finds it telling that the
jury initially determined Plaintiff was entitled to no
compensation for pain and suffering before awarding only
$1.00 in nominal damages after being compelled to
deliberate further by the Court.
Additionally, the contradictory nature of the evidence
also supports the jury’s denial of an award for past loss of
full mind and body, making additional instruction by the
Court to the jury on this issue unwarranted.
The jury’s verdict and damage award was supported by
substantial evidence, did justice for all parties, and should
not be disturbed.
Bryant appealed, arguing the verdict was inconsistent and
inadequate. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court
of appeals affirmed the order denying a new trial. It concluded that given
Bryant’s preaccident history of pain and lack of objective evidence of
pain, the one-dollar award for pain and suffering was consistent with the
evidence:
[W]e conclude the one dollar award remedied the
inconsistency, if any, because the award is not so logically
and legally inconsistent as to be irreconcilable in the context
of the case. The cause and extent of injury were clearly
disputed, and Bryant was not credible.
We granted Bryant’s application for further review.
II. Standard of Review.
Our review of a district court’s ruling on a motion for new trial
depends on the grounds raised in the motion. Clinton Physical Therapy
Servs., P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc., 714 N.W.2d 603, 609 (Iowa
2006). When the ground for a new trial is inconsistency of the jury
verdict, we review for correction of errors at law. Id. “[J]ury[] verdicts are
to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and to
harmonize the verdicts if it is possible to do so.” Hoffman v. Nat’l Med.
15
Enters., Inc., 442 N.W.2d 123, 126 (Iowa 1989). “We are slower to
interfere with the grant of a new trial than with its denial.” Cowan v.
Flannery, 461 N.W.2d 155, 157 (Iowa 1990); see Iowa R. App. P.
6.904(3)(d).
III. Analysis.
We must decide whether the jury verdict awarding $16,937 in past
medical expenses but just one dollar in past pain and suffering is
inconsistent such that a new trial is required. We first address Parr’s
contention that Bryant failed to preserve error because he did not
request the court to instruct the jury to resume deliberations yet again
after it increased the pain and suffering award from zero to one dollar.
We conclude error was preserved by Bryant’s objections and motion for a
new trial. On the merits of the appeal, we hold the verdict is inconsistent
and a new trial on damages is required.
A. Error Preservation. Parr argues on appeal that Bryant failed
to preserve error because Bryant did not ask the district court to instruct
the jury to resume deliberations after the jury awarded one dollar for
past pain and suffering. Parr contends that a party challenging an
inconsistent verdict must request further deliberations to cure the
inconsistency before moving for a new trial or appealing. What sets this
case apart, however, is that the jury had already been instructed to
resume deliberations for a second time to cure an inconsistency after it
initially awarded nearly $17,000 in medical expenses and zero for pain
and suffering. The district court, with the agreement of all parties,
instructed the jury that an award of medical expenses requires an award
for pain and suffering. The jury responded by awarding one dollar. All
parties and the district court agreed that additional jury deliberations
were not required.
16
Parr cites no case, and we found none, holding that to preserve
error for appeal a jury already instructed once to resume deliberations to
resolve an inconsistency must be instructed to resume deliberations yet
again after returning a new, slightly different award. Our rules do not
require sending the jury back repeatedly to resolve inconsistent verdicts.
To the contrary, the district court may “either send the jury back for
additional deliberations or grant a new trial.” Clinton Physical Therapy,
714 N.W.2d at 611 (emphasis added); see also Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.934 (“If
the answers are inconsistent with each other . . . the court shall not
order judgment, but either send the jury back or order a new trial.”). In
Clinton Physical Therapy, the plaintiff consented to a sealed verdict,5
which we noted “may constitute a waiver of the additional-deliberations
option, but it would not constitute a waiver of other remedies.” 714
N.W.2d at 610. We held that the plaintiff preserved error to challenge
the district court’s denial of its motion for a new trial based on the
inconsistent verdict. Id.The district court is best positioned to determine whether to order
additional deliberations before ruling on a motion for new trial. See
Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 762 (Iowa 1974) (“Ordinarily, it is
discretionary with the court as to which of these alternatives to choose.”).
All parties agreed this jury should not be sent back to deliberate again.
Bryant thereby waived the right to seek further deliberations but not a
new trial. Bryant objected to the verdict as inconsistent and inadequate
and moved for a new trial on those grounds. We hold he preserved error
to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial.
5A sealed verdict permits the district court to discharge the jury after it reaches
the verdict “without reporting its findings in open court in the presence of the parties.”
Clinton Physical Therapy, 714 N.W.2d at 607–08.
17
B. Inconsistent Verdict. Bryant primarily argues the jury award
of $16,937 in past medical bills incurred to treat his complaints of pain
over several years is inconsistent with the award of one dollar for past
pain and suffering. 6 The first step in our analysis “is to determine if an
inconsistency exists.” Clinton Physical Therapy, 714 N.W.2d at 613.
“When we can harmonize the jury verdict in a reasonable manner
consistent with the jury instructions, the evidence, and inferences the
jury could have drawn from that evidence, the verdict is not
inconsistent.” Crow v. Simpson, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2015); see also
Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.934. Conversely, “[w]hen, under this analysis, two
answers or findings by the jury would compel the rendition of different
judgments, the answers are inconsistent.” Clinton Physical Therapy, 714
N.W.2d at 613. The district court may enter judgment based on
consistent answers but may not enter judgment when the answers to
interrogatories are inconsistent. Id.We applied these principles in Clinton Physical Therapy. In that
case, the plaintiff, a provider of physical therapy services, sued a health
maintenance organization (HMO) for breach of contract. Id. at 606. The
fighting issue was whether the HMO’s plan covered the services, billed at
fifty dollars per office visit. Id. at 606. The HMO contended the plaintiff
failed to mitigate damages by continuing to provide services for members
6Bryant also argues the verdict was inconsistent because the jury failed to
award any amount for loss of full use of mind and body. We agree with the district
court and court of appeals that the jury’s finding on that element of damages was not
inconsistent with the award of medical expenses. The jury was instructed that damages
for loss of full use compensate for the “inability of a particular part of the mind and
body to function in a normal manner.” It is a separate element from pain and suffering.
See Brant v. Bockholt, 532 N.W.2d 801, 804–05 (Iowa 1995). The jury could have found
Bryant suffered no loss of function from the accident. Accordingly, the jury’s award of
medical expenses but zero for loss of full use is not inconsistent.
18
after being notified they were not covered by its plan. Id. The case was
submitted to the jury with special interrogatories. Id. at 607–08. The
jury returned a sealed verdict with answers to the first three
interrogatories, finding the HMO breached the contract. Id. at 608. The
jury answered the fourth interrogatory by finding the plaintiff did not fail
to mitigate its damages. Id. The jury’s answer to the fifth interrogatory
found the plaintiff’s damages were $138,750. Id. Yet, the jury answered
the sixth interrogatory by finding the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages
in the amount of $128,200. Id. The district court “discharged the jury
without notifying the attorneys for the parties.” Id. The plaintiff moved
for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was inconsistent. Id. The district
court found it was possible to reconcile the answers based on evidence
that $128,200 was the amount billed after notification that the services
were outside the HMO’s coverage while $138,750 was the total amount
billed. Id. at 609. The district court changed the jury’s answer to the
fourth interrogatory from “no” to “yes” to reflect a finding of failure to
mitigate and entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $10,550.
Id.
The plaintiff appealed, and we transferred the case to the court of
appeals, which affirmed. Id. We granted the plaintiff’s application for
further review. Id. We acknowledged “the district court may have
uncovered a very logical explanation for the inconsistent answers.” Id. at
614. But we concluded that reforming the verdict required impermissible
speculation as to the jury’s intent as to conflicting evidence of mitigation:
[w]hen two answers in a verdict are both supported by
substantial evidence but are inconsistent under the
instructions, a court may not attempt to reconcile the
inconsistency and enter a judgment by correcting the
inconsistency to conform to the intent of the jury because
19
the two conflicting views of the evidence would necessarily
produce some speculation about the intent of the jury.
Id. Accordingly, we held “[t]he answers in the verdict in this case were
internally inconsistent as a matter of law” which required a new trial. Id.
Because the jury in that case had not been given the opportunity
to resolve the inconsistency through further deliberations, necessitating
a retrial, we reiterated, “To avoid repetition of this resource-wasting
result, we repeat [our] prior admonition that ‘[t]he trial court should not
discharge the jury until it determines the special verdict is consistent
and supported by evidence.’ ” Id. at 616 (quoting Cowan, 461 N.W.2d at
160)). The district court in this case followed that admonition when the
jury awarded Bryant nearly $17,000 in medical expenses but zero for
pain and suffering—a verdict all parties agreed was inconsistent. But
the jury, after being instructed an award of medical expenses required an
award for pain and suffering, deliberated again and awarded one dollar
for that element, leaving the rest of its verdict unchanged. The district
court and court of appeals concluded the one dollar award cured the
inconsistency. We disagree.
A dollar constitutes nominal damages. Cowan, 461 N.W.2d at 158.
We have stated:
Generally, nominal damages are not recoverable in cases in
which damages are an element of the cause of action.
Because damages are an element of a negligence or
comparative fault action, nominal damages should not be
awarded. If a party has suffered personal injury as a result
of another’s negligence or fault, the injured party is entitled
to actual or substantial damages, not nominal damages.
Nominal damages are allowed, not as an equivalent for the
wrong, but in recognition of a technical injury and by way of
declaring a right and are not the same as damages small in
amount.
Id. at 158–59 (citations omitted). In Cowan, we held that an award of
medical expenses to treat pain was inconsistent with an award of zero for
20
pain and suffering. Id. at 160. The district court erred by failing to follow
Cowan.
Cowan was injured when his car collided with a grain truck. Id. at
156, 159. He sued the truck driver for negligence. Id. at 156. Cowan’s
alleged damages included medical expenses incurred to treat severe
headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, and back pain from the collision.
Id. at 159. The defendant “vigorously challenged” Cowan’s alleged
injuries with medical records noting Cowan’s prompt recovery and a job
application submitted a year after the accident in which Cowan “certified
. . . he did not have, nor had he ever had, chronic neck pain, neck
stiffness, chest pain, back injury, chronic back pain or back stiffness.”
Id. at 160. The jury found past and future medical expenses totaling
$21,220 but awarded zero for pain and suffering, loss of earning
capacity, or loss of body function. Id. at 157. The jury was discharged
without further deliberations, and the district court entered judgment on
the verdict. Id. Cowan moved for a new trial, contending the verdict was
“internally inconsistent” and “not supported by the evidence.” Id. The
district court denied the motion, ruling that the “total amount of
damages found by the jury is reasonable and supported by the evidence.”
Id. Cowan appealed. Id. at 156. We reversed and remanded the case for
a new trial on damages. Id. at 160. We concluded,
It is illogical to award past and future medical expense
incurred to relieve headache, neck and back pain and then
allow nothing for such physical and mental pain and
suffering. Having determined that these medical expenses
were recoverable, there seems no way for the jury to disallow
recovery for the appellant’s pain and suffering for the same
injuries. Although the award may be adequate, a special
verdict award of nothing for pain and suffering is
inconsistent and unsupported by evidence.
Id. at 160. The same reasoning applies to Bryant’s verdict.
21
By contrast, in Foggia v. Des Moines Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., we were
presented with a factual variation of Cowan and held a small award for
pain and suffering but zero for medical expenses was consistent. 543
N.W.2d 889, 891–92 (Iowa 1996). Foggia slipped and fell on an icy
concrete slab outside the defendants’ bowling alley. Id. at 890. He first
sought treatment months later, when he told his chiropractor “he was
sore because he had just cut down 100 trees.” Id. He did not inform his
chiropractor that he had fallen on ice until his next visit a day later. Id.At trial, the defendants produced evidence that Foggia had an extensive
history of separate injuries, both before and after his fall at the bowling
alley. Id. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded one hundred
dollars for past pain and suffering, but zero for future pain and suffering,
past medical expenses, or loss of past and future body function. Id. at
891. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on the allegedly
inconsistent verdict was denied, and he appealed. Id.We affirmed and held the jury verdict that awarded Foggia one
hundred dollars for pain and suffering but no medical expenses was
consistent. Id. at 892. We considered the verdict in Foggia to be the
“inverse” of the verdict in Cowan:
The court in Cowan . . . opined that it was illogical for a jury
to “award past and future medical expense incurred to
relieve headache, neck and back pain and then allow
nothing for such physical pain and suffering.” Such a
breach of logic does not exist in the instant case. Here the
jury awarded Foggia damages for past pain and suffering,
but nothing for past medical expenses. Based on the
evidence and testimony presented at trial, it is plausible that
the jury found none of his medical expenses were caused by
the fall at issue. The jury in this case found that the
plaintiff’s claimed medical expenses, loss of function, and
much of his pain and suffering were not the result of this
fall. Because these are the precise types of findings within
the province of the jury and they are supported by
substantial evidence in the record, we will not disturb them
by granting the plaintiff a new trial.
22
Id. (quoting Cowan, 461 N.W.2d at 160). Cowan is the applicable
precedent here, and its application requires a new trial in this case.
The jury was instructed to award only damages caused by Parr’s
negligence. 7 Bryant’s submitted medical expenses of over $30,000,
which according to his testimony, were incurred to treat his complaints
of pain from the accident caused by Parr’s negligent driving. Like the
defendant in Cowan, Parr vigorously contested the extent of Bryant’s
injuries and impeached him with his own inconsistent statements. The
jury could have found Bryant suffered only minimal injuries in the
accident and greatly exaggerated his complaints of pain. The evidence
supported a finding that the ongoing chiropractic treatment, and much
of his other medical care, was for preexisting conditions or unrelated to
the accident. 8 Yet, the jury found Parr’s negligence caused Bryant to
incur $16,937 in medical expenses. 9 These damages were necessarily for
many months of treatment of his accident-related injuries, specifically,
pain. Moreover, the jury awarded Bryant $1574 for three weeks of lost
earnings, again necessarily finding that accident-related pain caused him
to miss work. These findings cannot be reconciled with the award of only
7Instruction No. 12 stated in part, “The conduct of a party is a cause of injury
when the injury would not have happened except for the conduct.” Instruction No. 26
stated in part, “The amount you assess for any item of damage must not exceed the
amount caused by a party as proved by the evidence.”
8Instruction No. 29 allowed recovery for the aggravation of preexisting medical
conditions but provided Bryant “is not entitled to recover for any physical ailment or
disability which existed before this incident or for any injuries or damages which he
now has which were not caused by either defendant’s actions.”
9Instruction No. 26 stated in part, “Do not allow amounts awarded under one
item of damage to be included in any amount awarded under another item of damage.”
Given the separate instructions for medical expenses and pain and suffering, we cannot
presume the jury intended its award of medical expenses to compensate Bryant for his
pain. To the contrary, the jury had been informed that Bryant’s insurer would be
reimbursed for any award of medical expenses up to $20,039. See Iowa Code
§ 668.14(2) (allowing evidence and argument as to insurance subrogation rights).
23
one dollar for pain and suffering. See Cowan, 461 N.W.2d at 158–60. If
the jury believed Bryant’s pain was nonexistent or unrelated to the
accident, it should not have awarded that amount of medical expenses or
lost earnings. We cannot speculate as to the jury’s intent to affirm a
judgment based on inconsistent answers. Clinton Physical Therapy, 714
N.W.2d at 614.
Because we are reversing on the inconsistency ground, we do not
reach Bryant’s alternative argument that the amount of the verdict was
inadequate. 10
C. Scope of New Trial. The parties disagree on the scope of a
new trial. Neither Bryant nor Parr argue liability should be retried.
Bryant seeks a new trial on all elements of damages, while Parr argues
the new trial on damages “should be limited to the verdict line-item of
any damage finding this Court deems must be retried.” Parr notes that
“Bryant has not challenged the jury’s verdict as to past medical
expenses, lost wages, or any future damages” and argues Bryant should
not get “a second bite at the apple as to damages which he did not
complain of on appeal, and which do not [affect] the re-trial of any
damages . . . reversed on appeal.” We must determine the scope of the
new trial.
10In Fisher v. Davis, we noted some of our cases addressing challenges to
verdicts that awarded medical expenses but no amount for pain and suffering held a
new trial was required because “the verdict was ‘inconsistent with the evidence.’ ” 601
N.W.2d 54, 59 (Iowa 1999) (quoting Shewry v. Heuer, 255 Iowa 147, 153, 121 N.W.2d
529, 533 (1963)). We stated, “In the future, a party seeking a new trial on the ground
that the verdict was inadequate should use the grounds in rule 244 [now Iowa R. Civ. P.
1.1004 governing motions for new trial] rather than the common law inconsistency rule.”
Id. (emphasis added). In Clinton Physical Therapy, however, we clarified that parties
may challenge such verdicts as “internally inconsistent” under our rules governing jury
verdicts and special interrogatories. 714 N.W.2d at 611–14. We reverse the district
court judgment on that basis here.
24
“The general rule is that when a new trial is granted, all issues
must be retried.” McElroy v. State, 703 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Iowa 2005).
We may narrow the scope of the retrial under some circumstances:
[a]s a condition to the granting of a partial new trial, it
should appear that the issue to be tried is distinct and
separable from the other issues, and that the new trial can
be had without danger of complications with other matters.
Id. (quoting Larimer v. Platte, 243 Iowa 1167, 1176, 53 N.W.2d 262, 267–
68 (1952)). In applying these principles to personal injury cases, we have
said, “If there is no evidence in the record that the jury’s determination of
fault was compromised or affected by the evidence of damages, the issue
of liability should not be resubmitted on remand.” Thompson v. Allen,
503 N.W.2d 400, 401 (Iowa 1993) (citing cases). We have repeatedly
limited the retrial to the issue of damages when the jury awarded past
medical expenses but zero for pain and suffering. See, e.g., Thompson,
503 N.W.2d at 401–02; Cowan, 461 N.W.2d at 160; Witte v. Vogt, 443
N.W.2d 715, 717 (Iowa 1989). Generally, “it [is] unfair to require a new
trial on all issues ‘when the verdict establishing liability was not the
result of a compromise trading off liability for reduced damages.’ ”
Thompson, 503 N.W.2d at 402 (quoting Vorthman v. Keith E. Myers
Enters., 296 N.W.2d 772, 778 (Iowa 1980)).
The jury found Parr ninety-five percent at fault for turning left into
the path of Rimrodt’s car and found Bryant, Parr’s passenger, five
percent at fault for telling her to turn left or distracting her. The jury
found Rimrodt faultless. No party contends the liability findings are
tainted by the jury’s determination of damages or that the jury
compromised on liability. Accordingly, we conclude the new trial shall be
on the issue of damages, with the total award to be reduced by Bryant’s
five percent fault.
25
In Brant v. Bockholt, we addressed the scope of a new trial on
damages. 532 N.W.2d 801, 805 (Iowa 1995). Jonas Brant, a high school
senior, was a passenger in a car accident who suffered severe facial
lacerations when he hit the windshield. Id. at 802. The accident left him
with permanent scarring. Id. at 803. The jury returned a verdict in his
favor and awarded past and future medical expenses and past and future
pain and suffering but “nothing for past or future loss of function of the
body or for future loss of earnings.” Id. He appealed, and we held a new
trial was required because “the jury should not have been instructed to
reduce the award for future pain and suffering to present worth.” Id. We
determined that liability need not be retried but ordered a retrial on all
elements of damage because “[j]ury determinations of various elements of
damages are apt to be influenced by the recovery allowed for other
elements of damage.” Id. at 805.
In Fisher v. Davis, however, we distinguished Brant as “pertaining
to one injury. That led us to conclude that the jury should consider
anew all the elements of damages pertaining to that injury.” 601 N.W.2d
54, 60 (Iowa 1999) (citation omitted). Darcy Fisher’s car was rear ended,
and she initially complained of neck pain and saw her physician the next
day. Id. at 55. He “diagnosed Fisher’s condition as ‘an injury to the
cervical and thoracic area of the spine,’ commonly referred to as a
whiplash injury.” Id. He noted that condition had “markedly improved”
eight days after the accident. Id. at 56. Three weeks after the accident,
Fisher complained for the first time of right arm and elbow pain, which
the same physician “diagnosed her condition as epicondylitis, commonly
referred to as ‘tennis elbow.’ ” Id. She later had surgery on her elbow
and physical therapy. Id. A year after her car accident, Fisher
complained for the first time of right shoulder pain, which was later
26
treated surgically. Id. Fisher sued the other driver, claiming her neck,
elbow, and shoulder injuries all resulted from the rear-end collision. Id.Causation of the injuries was the fighting issue at trial. Id. The district
court submitted her claims for all three injuries to the jury, which
returned a verdict for $534 in past medical expenses, the amount
incurred for treatment of her neck pain alone. Id. at 56–57. The jury
awarded nothing for past or future pain and suffering or any other
elements of damage. Id. at 57. We concluded the damage award was
inadequate because “it was illogical for the jury to award Fisher medical
expenses to treat her neck injury and pain and then allow nothing for
her pain and suffering.” Id. at 59. But we determined that the jury, by
awarding the “precise medical expenses relating to Fisher’s neck injury,”
found that injury alone was sustained in the collision. Id. at 60(“[I]nherent in that award was also a clear rejection of Fisher’s claim that
her elbow and shoulder were also injured in the collision.”). Accordingly,
we held that “any retrial should be limited to damages relating to Fisher’s
neck injury.” Id.Bryant likewise claimed he sustained multiple injuries in the
accident resulting in neck pain, headaches, blurred vision, and low back
pain that manifested at different times. But unlike Fisher, the amount of
Bryant’s medical expenses awarded cannot be attributed to treatment of
one type of injury to the exclusion of others. Accordingly, we decline
Parr’s invitation to limit the retrial to some elements of past damages but
not others. This leaves Parr’s argument that because the jury declined to
award Bryant any future damages, the retrial should be limited to past
damages, presumably up to the date of the first trial. Parr, without citing
supporting authority, contends Bryant waived his right to a retrial on
future damages by not challenging the jury’s failure to award him any
27
amount for future damages. Bryant responds that he sought a new trial
on all elements of damages based on Brant. We conclude Bryant’s
motion for new trial preserved error on his claim that the new trial
should be on all elements of damage, past and future.
Since Fisher, we have not adjudicated the scope of a new trial in a
personal injury action when the first jury had awarded no future
damages and the inconsistency in its verdict involved only past medical
expenses and past pain and suffering. None of our cases before Fisher
limited the scope of a new trial on damages to preclude submission of an
element of damage rejected by the first jury. We see no indication that
the jury’s rejection of Bryant’s claims for future damages resulted from a
compromise trading off amounts awarded for past damages.
Nevertheless, we face the confirmed inconsistency in the verdict on past
damages, our admonition in Brant that the award for one element of
damages may affect another, and our general reluctance to engage in
speculation to uphold findings in an inconsistent verdict. Cf. Clinton
Physical Therapy, 714 N.W.2d at 614 (declining to engage in speculation
to reform inconsistent verdict). Moreover, Bryant may have new
evidence, including medical expenses incurred since the first trial over
two years ago, which would be unfair to exclude from a retrial. Cf.
McElroy, 703 N.W.2d at 389 (cautioning against narrowing scope of
retrial in a manner that complicates other matters).
We hold Bryant is entitled to a new trial on all elements of damage
supported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding the first jury’s
rejection of his future damage claims in July 2013.
28
IV. Disposition.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the decision of the court of
appeals, reverse the district court judgment, and remand the case for a
new trial on damages.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED FOR A NEW
TRIAL ON DAMAGES.
All justices concur except Mansfield, J., and Cady, C.J., who
concur in part and dissent in part.
29
#13–1883, Bryant v. Parr
MANSFIELD, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that a new trial is required because the special verdict
awarding $16,937.53 for past medical expenses is inconsistent with the
special verdict awarding only a nominal one dollar for past pain and
suffering. However, there is no reason for the new trial to encompass all
damages. Everyone received a fair trial below, and the jury clearly
rejected Bryant’s claims for ongoing or future harm. That is, the jury
awarded Bryant nothing for future medical expenses, future pain and
suffering, loss of future earning capacity, or future loss of full mind and
body. Just as it is unnecessary for liability to be retried, an area where
Bryant obtained a favorable verdict, by the same rationale it is
unnecessary for future damages to be retried, where Parr prevailed.
The stated reason for not limiting a new trial to certain categories
of damages is the concern that “[j]ury determinations of various elements
of damages are apt to be influenced by the recovery allowed for other
elements of damage.” Brant v. Bockholt, 532 N.W.2d 801, 805 (Iowa
1995). But that concern about cross-contamination is absent here, as
the majority concedes. For past medical expenses, the jury awarded
essentially the amount that Parr’s counsel conceded was due to Bryant—
assuming the jury found liability—and less than the amount that
insurance had paid on behalf of Bryant. It is simply inconceivable that
this jury concluded Bryant had suffered some future harm but decided
not to award any damages for it because of some other damages he was
getting.
Moreover, in Fisher v. Davis, 601 N.W.2d 54, 61 (Iowa 1999), we
qualified Brant somewhat and indicated there is no need to retry
“rejected claims [that] are irrelevant to the elements of damages
30
pertaining to the injury the jury did believe [the plaintiff] sustained.”
Retrial here could be easily and economically limited to Bryant’s alleged
past damages.
The majority says that Bryant may have “medical expenses
incurred since the first trial . . . which would be unfair to exclude from a
retrial.” But this of course begs the question whether there should be a
second trial on claims as to which Bryant had a fair trial and which the
jury squarely rejected. If a second trial is warranted, parties should be
able to update their relevant evidence, but that is not a separate reason
for a new trial.
Numerous other jurisdictions have followed the approach for which
I am advocating here. See Rice v. Cmty. Health Ass’n, 203 F.3d 283, 290
(4th Cir. 2000) (noting that “a new trial can be limited to ‘any separable
matter’ ” and ordering a new trial on consequential damages only so as to
avoid a “windfall” to the defendant that had not challenged other aspects
of the damage award (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2814 (2d ed. (1995))); Peebles v. Circuit City
Stores, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 10195(CSH), 2003 WL 22227964, *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 25, 2003) (ordering a new trial only as to future damages rather
than all damages and stating that “the greater weight of [New York]
authority favors” this position); Sunahara v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 280 P.3d 649, 658 (Colo. 2012) (limiting a new trial to the issue of
past economic damages only); ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se. v. Owens,
816 So. 2d 572, 577–78 (Fla. 2002) (noting that “[t]he plaintiff’s future
medical damages constitute a discrete item of recovery, separate from
other damages,” and a new trial should be confined to them alone);
Costales v. Rosete, 331 P.3d 431, 446 (Haw. 2014) (“We therefore further
limit the damages issues to be re-tried to those that are contested and
31
that are ‘sufficiently separate’ from those damages issues that are not
contested on appeal.”); Stamp v. Sylvan, 906 N.E.2d 1222, 1230–31 (Ill.
App. Ct. 2009) (finding a verdict irreconcilably inconsistent where the
jury awarded damages for past medical expenses but not pain and
suffering while upholding the trial court’s decision to limit the new
damages trial to pain and suffering and loss of a normal life for the six-
month period as to which the jury awarded medical expenses); Masterson
v. Siemens Indus., Inc., Nos. 2013-CA-000014-MR and 2013-CA-000050-
MR, 2014 WL 5489304, at *3 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2014) (upholding the
trial court’s decision to limit the new trial to the sole issue of pain and
suffering damages for a discrete time period and leaving the jury verdict
undisturbed with regard to all other issues); Lindquist v. Scott
Radiological Grp. Inc., 168 S.W.3d 635, 651 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)
(affirming the grant of a new trial limited to the issue of past economic
damages); Richards v. Fairfield, 6 N.Y.S. 3d 743, 745–46 (App. Div. 2015)
(ordering a new trial limited to consideration of damages for future pain
and suffering while upholding damages awarded for past pain and
suffering); Foust v. Smith, No. 26275, 2015 WL 968856, at *4 (Ohio Ct.
App. Mar. 6, 2015) (finding that the trial court “acted reasonably by
finding that the failure to award [plaintiff] some amount for pain and
suffering is contrary to the weight of the evidence” and that the “court
did not err by granting a new trial on that singular issue limited to past
physical pain and suffering damages”); Orris v. Brand, No. 98-1361, 1999
WL 516724, at *1 (Wis. Ct. App. July 22, 1999) (per curiam) (affirming
the grant of a new trial limited solely to consideration of damages for
pain and suffering and noting that “[a] jury’s decision on pain and
suffering damages would not necessarily be affected by its decisions on
other components of damages”).
32
One last point: It should be emphasized that the majority’s
principle works in both directions. Suppose the jury felt that Bryant had
been seriously and permanently injured in the accident and awarded him
everything his attorney had asked for in closing argument, except for
past pain and suffering damages where it only awarded one dollar.
Under the court’s decision, as a practical matter, Bryant would be
reluctant to appeal this verdict inconsistency, because if he won, he
would lose his entire damages award and be stuck with a do-over on all
aspects of damages. By the same token, Parr could use an appeal on
this specific inconsistency as a method to overturn the entire damages
award. Is that fair?
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.
Cady, C.J., joins this concurrence in part and dissent in part.