Barrera-Mejia v. Gomez

 labor and heavy lifting and presented the testimony of another doctor, who
testified that Gomez had pre-existing complaints about pain in her neck,
back, arms and legs. This doctor, however, also testified that Gomez's disc
injuries were caused by the accident. After considering the evidence, the
jury awarded Gomez $0 for damages.
Gomez moved for a new trial based on the jury's manifest
disregard of the jury instructions and misconduct by Barrera-Mejia's
counsel. The district court found that the jury had disregarded the jury
instructions because the jurors could not have found an absence of
damages when all three doctors testified that Gomez's disc injuries were
caused by the accident. The district court also found that defense counsel
improperly challenged Gomez's medical expenses through arguments that
appealed solely to the emotions of the jury, and that the objections and
admonishments given were insufficient to cure the effect of the improper
arguments. The district court granted a new trial, and this appeal
followed.
The district court may grant a new trial when, among other
things, there is Imlisconduct of the jury or prevailing party . . . [or]
[m]anifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court." NRCP
59(a). We review a district court's decision to grant a motion for a new
trial for an abuse of discretion. Edwards Indus., Inc. v. DTE/BTE, Inc.,
112 Nev. 1025, 1036, 923 P.2d 569, 576 (1996). In this case, the three
doctors who testified unequivocally stated that, based upon their
examination of Gomez and review of her pre- and post-accident medical
records, Gomez's disc injuries and treatment were caused by the accident.
On this record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
discretion in granting a new trial.' Taylor v Silva, 96 Nev. 738, 740-41,
615 P.2d 970, 971-72 (1980); Shere v. Davis, 95 Nev. 491, 493, 596 P.2d
499, 500 (1979). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting
a new trial.
It is so ORDERED. 2
Saitta
Picky? d
Pickering
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20
Eva Garcia-Mendoza, Settlement Judge
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas
Law Offices of R.S. & Associates
Vannah & Vannah
Eighth District Court Clerk
iBarrera-Mejia also argued that Gomez was required to prove
causation by providing a biomechanical expert's opinion that Gomez's
injuries were caused by the accident. A plaintiff in a personal injury
action is not required to present a biomechanical expert to prove
causation. Rather, causation issues, including the severity of an accident
and whether injuries stemmed from the accident are proper factual issues
for a jury, Nehls v. Leonard, 97 Nev. 325, 328, 630 P.2d 258, 260 (1981),
and a medical doctor may offer an opinion regarding how certain injuries
were caused if a proper foundation is laid. See Santos v. Nicolos, 879
N.Y.S.2d 701, 704 (Sup. Ct. 2009); Streight v. Conroy, 566 P.2d 1198, 1200
(Or. 1977).
2 Wehave considered Barrera-Mejia's other arguments on appeal and
conclude that they lack merit.
SUPREME COUFF1
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1.9.0A