MARSICO v. MARSICO

Filing 56

ORDER denying 54 Motion for Reconsideration of the Damage Aspect of the Court's Ruling. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 4/4/16. (rtw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LOUIS S. MARISCO,
Plaintiff,

v.
RORY M. MARISCO,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 14-397

Memorandum Opinion & Order

On March 16, 2016, we issued an Opinion and Order ruling in favor of Plaintiff Louis
Marsico and awarding him of $14,979.61 in medical damages and $50,000 for pain and suffering
and loss of enjoyment of life. Presently before the Court is Louis Marscio's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Damage Aspect of the Court's Ruling and Brief in Support. ECF Nos. 54
& 55.

"The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d
Cir.1985). "Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking
reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: ( 1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court
granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error oflaw or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir.1999), citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d
Cir.1995); see also NL Indus., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 65 F.3d 314, 324 n. 8 (3d
Cir.1995).

Mr. Marsico alleges that the Court committed a clear error of law or fact in that he claims
that because the comparable cases we reviewed were from 1974 to 2001, we failed to take into
account the inflation rate, or a statutory interest, that should have been applied to the damage
award. Perhaps we should have been more explicit, but we in fact did consider the age of the
cases we reviewed when comparing Mr. Marsico's injury, pain and suffering, and loss of
enjoyment of life. While we were aware of the dollar amount of damages awarded in each case
as well as the year in which the damages were awarded, we independently considered an
appropriate damage award for Mr. Marscio that was not based on a dollar for dollar comparison
to the damage awards in the cases we reviewed. That is, we concluded that in 2016 an award of
$50,000 in damages was the appropriate amount to be awarded in this case. In our opinion if the
damages in this case had been awarded in 2006, or 1996, or any prior year, the award would
have been discounted to reflect the equivalent value of $50,000 in each of those years. We thus
will deny the motion for reconsideration.
AND NOW, to-wit, this

L/

/j;; day of April, 2016, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of the Damage Aspect
of the Court's Ruling (ECF No. 54) be and hereby is DENIED.

~

6. eo eu·'l,v .

Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

2