Wainwright v. Fontenot - 00-0492 ( La. 10/17/00), 774 So. 2d 70

Rule:

A jury, in the exercise of its discretion as factfinder, can reasonably reach the conclusion that a plaintiff has proven his entitlement to recovery of certain medical costs, yet failed to prove that he endured compensable pain and suffering as a result of defendant's fault. It may often be the case that such a verdict may not withstand review under the abuse of discretion standard. However, it would be inconsistent with the great deference afforded the factfinder by the court and jurisprudence to state that, as a matter of law, such a verdict must always be erroneous. Rather, a reviewing court faced with a verdict must ask whether the jury's determination that plaintiff is entitled to certain medical expenses but not to general damages is so inconsistent as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Only after the reviewing court determines that the factfinder has abused its much discretion can that court conduct a de novo review of the record.

Facts:

In July 1995, there was a late-night grease fire in the kitchen of the Wainwright home. Bert John Wainwright ("Bert"), the father of John Scott Wainwright ("John Scott"), was burned while putting out the fire. Soon thereafter, John Scott began to exhibit signs of stress. When John Scott's [Pg 2] anxiety did not subside, Bert and John Scott's mother, Jenna Cay Wainwright ("Jenna"), sought counseling for John Scott with Dr. Charles Monlezun, a clinical social worker. Dr. Monlezun first saw John Scott on February 7, 1996, and diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder. Following several visits with John Scott, Dr. Monlezun referred John Scott to Dr. John Bambanek, a board-certified child psychiatrist. On March 7, 2000, Dr. Bambanek prescribed Prozac for John Scott. Dr. Bambanek ordered five milligrams of Prozac once daily, which he testified in his video-taped trial deposition was about one-quarter the normal adult dose of twenty milligrams. The Wainwrights filled Dr. Bamabanek's prescription at a pharmacy operated by Walgreen Louisiana Company, Inc. ("Walgreen"). On March 7, 1996, pharmacist Romona Fontenot ("Fontenot") incorrectly filled the prescription by placing on the label instructions for one dose of twenty milligrams per day rather than the five milligrams per day prescribed by Dr. Bambanek. On the morning of March 9, 1996 Bert gave John Scott his first twenty milligram dose of Prozac. The Wainwrights have argued throughout that, almost immediately thereafter, John Scott's emotional state worsened and that he became increasingly combative and aggressive. Bert gave John Scott a second twenty milligram dose on the morning of March 10, 1996. Again, the Wainwrights argue, John Scott became irrational and violent, threatening his mother with a fireplace poker and indicating that he would do harm to himself. That same day, Jenna called the Walgreen pharmacy and spoke to the pharmacy manager, Sharon Courrege ("Courrege"). Jenna asked Courrege to confirm that the Wainwrights were giving John Scott the correct dosage by checking Dr. Bambanek's original prescription. Courrege admitted at trial that she did not check the original prescription, but told Jenna that she had done so and that twenty milligrams was the dosage prescribed by Dr. Bambanek. The following day, March 11, 1996, the Wainwrights gave John Scott a third twenty milligram dose of Prozac. The Wainwrights maintain that John Scott again became combative and violent, ultimately requiring Bert to physically restrain him. That afternoon, the Wainwrights consulted Dr. Monlezun about John Scott's erratic behavior over the weekend. Dr. Monlezun in turn [Pg 3] called Dr. Bambanek, who confirmed that he had prescribed only five milligrams of Prozac, not the twenty milligrams indicated on the label printed by Fontenot. The Wainwrights then took John Scott to the Children's Clinic in Lake Charles. John Scott was admitted for observation and testing and released the afternoon of March 12, 1996. On February 6, 1997, Bert and Jenna Wainwright filed suit, individually and on behalf of John Scott, naming as defendants Fontenot, Walgreen and Kemper National Insurance Company, Walgreen's liability insurer. Plaintiffs sought general damages as well as damages for medical expenses, past and future counseling expenses, and loss of consortium for both Bert and Jenna, all of which they urged stemmed from Walgreen's negligence in filling the prescription and John Scott's subsequent overdose. The jury found that Walgreen's conduct was the legal cause of the injuries to John Scott, assessing 99% of the fault to Walgreen and 1% to Bert. The jury awarded plaintiffs $ 1,500.00 in medical expenses, but declined to award general damages for John Scott or loss of consortium damages to Bert and Jenna. The jury also declined to make any award for future counseling or tutorial expenses. The third circuit panel amended the trial court judgment, increasing the medical expenses award from $ 1,500.00 to $ 7,372.00. The court of appeal also awarded general damages for John Scott's injuries, finding that it was legal error for the jury to award medical expenses while declining to award general damages for injuries that presented objective symptoms.

Issue:

Did the jury err in not granting general damages?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

In this case, the jury apparently did not believe that pain and suffering, for example, or missed work, resulted from the injury which [defendant] caused. It did believe that medical and incidental expenses were incurred as a result of the injury, and it awarded damages for those claims. The jury made its determinations, and it is not for this court, absent evidence of unfairness, mistake, partiality, prejudice, corruption, exorbitance, excessiveness, or a result that is offensive to the conscience and judgment of the court, to disturb them. "In a suit for damages, it is the plaintiff's burden to prove the damage he suffered as a result of defendant's fault[.]" The onus was thus on the Wainwrights to affirmatively establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that John Scott was entitled to general damages for pain and suffering. Here, there was no abuse of discretion in the jury's failure to award general damages. Simply put, there was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that John Scott's brief overdose and hospitalization resulted in no compensable pain and suffering. Moreover, as the jury concluded that John Scott was entitled to no general damages, it could similarly have concluded that many of John Scott's medical expenses were unrelated to the Prozac incident. The jury's original award of $ 1,500.00 in medical expenses is consistent with its finding that the only adverse effect on John Scott from the Prozac incident was his one-night stay in the hospital. It cannot be said that, based on the record evidence, the jury was wrong to conclude that such a limited award was warranted in this case.