In the non-precedential Memorandum decision in the case of Hernandez-Lerch v. Gray, No. 842 MDA 2015 (Pa.
Super. May 17, 2016 Panella, Lazarus, Platt, J.J.)(Op. by Lazarus, J.), by Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled
that a trial court erred in denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial on
the issue on damages after the jury awarded an automobile accident Plaintiff
damages for medical bills and wage loss but nothing for pain and suffering. The court found that uncontested evidence of
the Plaintiff’s injuries showed that she had suffered compensable pain that
amounted to more than a mere transient rub of life.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged soft issue
injuries along with wage losses and medical expenses. The Superior Court noted that uncontested
evidence revealed that the Plaintiff’s injuries were treated with an epidural
steroid injection, physical therapy, along with the use of a TENS unit and a
home traction unit. The court
reiterated that the evidence of the injury was uncontested and that the
Plaintiff’s treating doctor and physician’s assistant offered testimony in
records to substantiate the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
More specifically, the court noted that the evidence showed
that the Plaintiff suffered cervical and lumbar sprain and strain injuries with
resultant pain, along with an aggravation of a pre-existing back injury. The court also noted that the injuries took
at least four (4) months to heal.
Anyone wishing to read a copy of this decision online may
click this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania
Law Weekly (May 31, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.