Lack of surgery doesn't support jury instruction

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a jury award and remanded for a new trial after ruling there was insufficient evidence to support an affirmative defense of a failure to mitigate damages instruction to the jury because a plaintiff failed to have surgery.

In Elwood and Lila Simmons v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 32A04-0710-CV-552, the couple appealed a judgment awarding them each $10,000 following an automobile accident involving Elwood and another driver, who was at fault. They filed a complaint seeking underinsured motorist insurance benefits from their insurer, Erie Insurance. Elwood sought compensation for damages suffered from the accident resulting in plantar fascitis, which caused pain in his right foot and made him develop a learned gait to avoid putting pressure on certain parts of his foot.

Elwood saw several doctors and was given treatment and physical therapy, but surgery was never suggested by any of the doctors.

At trial, Erie tendered a proposed jury instruction on the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages, which the trial court allowed. The jury awarded $10,000 each to the couple but granted Erie's motion that they weren't entitled to any payment from Erie because they had been paid previously by the other motorist's insurance.

Erie argued Elwood failed to mitigate damages by not undergoing surgery to treat his plantar fascitis, by developing a learned gait, and his alleged failure to regularly use medications and orthotics.

The Court of Appeals noted in the opinion that the "duty of one injured because of another's fault to submit to invasive treatment has caused courts some trouble" and Indiana hasn't addressed whether a plaintiff has to submit to surgery in nearly 100 years. The appellate court examined previous Indiana caselaw on this matter, as well as rulings from other states to conclude whether a plaintiff has a duty to submit to surgery requires a "reasonable person" analysis, wrote Judge Margret Robb.

Based on the facts that no doctor recommended surgery, his doctors prescribed other treatments, and Erie's failure to introduce evidence regarding the risks, benefits, costs, or inconveniences of the surgery, the Court of Appeals concluded Elwood's failure to undergo surgery is insufficient to support an instruction on failure to mitigate damages.

The court also found his learned gait as a result of the plantar fascitis and his alleged failure to regularly use his medications and orthotics don't support the trial court's instruction on failure to mitigate damages, wrote Judge Robb.

The issue of mitigation of damages was emphasized for the jury, and the likelihood the matter was discussed and impacted the jury's verdict is significant and not a harmless error, wrote the judge, so the appellate court remanded for a new trial.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?