Rogers v. Rausa


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-01760-COA
Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01760-SCT ; 2001-CT-01760-SCT ; 2001-CT-01760-SCT ; 2001-CA-01760-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-05-2003
Opinion Author: Bridges, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Damages - Future medical expenses - Notice - Expert testimony
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-26-2001
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Tomie Green
Disposition: $100,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF RAUSA
Case Number: 251-98-911-CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: George R. Rogers a/k/a George E. Rogers




MICHAEL VERDIER CORY LANNY R. PACE



 

Appellee: Riccardo Rausa WILLIAM JOSEPH KERLEY JOHN G. CLARK  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Personal injury - Damages - Future medical expenses - Notice - Expert testimony

Summary of the Facts: Riccardo Rausa filed a complaint against George Rogers, alleging that he suffered permanent injuries and damages and future medical bills as a result of a motor vehicle collision. The case was tried before a jury on the issue of damages only. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Rausa in the amount of $100,000. Rogers appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Weight of evidence At the time of the trial, Rausa had incurred past medical expenses in the amount of $8,356.59 and lost wages of $2,400 according to the medical bill summary which was admitted into evidence. The most conservative estimate of future medical expenses would be slightly over $1,000 a year for 44.3 years. There was testimony, not only concerning permanent injuries, physical pain and suffering, but also emotional distress, future disability, and loss of enjoyment of life. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Issue 2: Future medical bills Rogers argues that until one week before trial he was defending a claim for approximately $8,000 in past medical expenses and by mid-day on the Friday before trial, he was instead defending claims for past and future medical expenses in excess of $100,000 without any reasonable opportunity to respond. As long as the defendant has notice of the subject matter, then fair notice was given. Rogers should have been aware that the subject of future medicals would be an issue throughout this litigation. The evidence shows that through the pre-suit letter to the insurance carrier, the complaint, in discovery answers, and in the medical records obtained, Rogers should have been aware that notice was given as to future medicals. Rogers also argues that since the pretrial order did not specifically identify the type of medical bills that were being sought, i.e., past or future, then Rausa should be barred from presenting evidence of future medical losses. If a claim or issue is omitted from the pre-trial order, it is waived, even if it appeared in the complaint. Just because the pre-trial order specifically acknowledged that Rausa suffered from a permanent injury and suffered other damages, those damages were not limited to only those that had been incurred prior to the date of the lawsuit. There is absolutely no indication that the medical bills did not include past, present, and/or future medical bills. Issue 3: Expert testimony It is not clear whether the appellant's argument concerns the relevance of the doctor's testimony or his expert qualifications. At trial, Rogers never objected to any of the testimony given by the doctor on the basis that his opinions were unreliable or lacked scientific or factual basis nor did he claim in his motion for JNOV or new trial that the doctor’s testimony and opinions were erroneously admitted because they were unreliable or lacked scientific or factual basis. Therefore, Rogers is procedurally barred from raising the issue on appeal.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court