ILNews

Lack of surgery doesn't support jury instruction

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
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.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT