Gilley v. Oviatt.
2025 COA 27. No. 23CA1950. Negligence—Damages—Past Medical Expenses—Substantial Evidence—Necessary and Reasonable Treatment Incurred as a Result of an Accident—Motion for Directed Verdict.
March 13, 2025
Roche rear-ended Gilley’s car at a yield sign, and Gilley sustained a traumatic brain injury and subsequent chronic health problems. Gilley sued Roche for negligence and negligence per se. At trial, Gilley presented testimony from five treating specialists who testified about Gilley’s injuries and the treatment they provided to her within their specialty. Each specialist testified that Gilley’s medical care was reasonable and necessary and related to the accident. Gilley also presented expert testimony from Woodard about her future life care needs and past medical treatment, and Woodard broke down Gilley’s future medical costs based on current treatment plans. Another expert, Nehls, testified that Gilley’s past medical expenses totaled $239,859.53, based on his review of a 199-page document containing all of Gilley’s medical bills accrued since the day of the accident (Exhibit 31). The trial court admitted Exhibit 31 over Roche’s objection. Roche moved for a directed verdict on Gilley’s claims for damages for past and future medical expenses, and the district court denied the motion. The jury returned a verdict for Gilley and awarded her noneconomic damages of $400,000; economic damages of $2,657,000; and physical impairment damages of $1,800,000. The jury assigned Gilley 45% of the blame for the accident, reducing her total award to $2,671,350.
On appeal, Roche contended that the trial court erred by denying its motion for a directed verdict because Gilley failed to prove that her medical expenses were actually incurred. Roche maintained that Exhibit 31 was insufficient to establish Gilley’s incurred medical expenses because it lacked the proper foundation to be admitted, and it did not establish Gilley’s incurred medical expenses. A directed verdict is appropriate only when no evidence could support a verdict against the moving party. Here, Exhibit 31 was properly authenticated. Further, Gilley’s physicians described their treatment plans, which were reflected in their medical bills in Exhibit 31, and testified that Gilley’s treatment was necessary and resulted from her accident. This, combined with Nehls’s testimony regarding his calculation of Gilley’s past medical expenses, provided a reasonable basis for computing damages. Accordingly, Roche was not entitled to a directed verdict.
Roche also argued that the trial court erroneously denied its motion for directed verdict because Gilley did not present evidence establishing the reasonable value of her past medical expenses. Here, Gilley presented evidence of the bills she received for medical treatment, and many of the witnesses testified that such treatment was reasonable and necessary. Accordingly, Gilley presented some evidence of the reasonable value of the medical services she received. Thus, the trial court did not err by denying the motion for directed verdict.
The judgment was affirmed.