Pickens et al v. Dowdy et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 92 defendant's Motion for a New Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 9/28/2018. (Pham, Tu)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
_________________________________________________________________
JOHN M. PICKENS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
No. 17-2205-TMP
)
AMY BETH DOWDY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
_________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is plaintiff John M. Pickens’s Motion for a
New Trial, filed on September 6, 2018.

(ECF No. 92.)

Amy Beth Dowdy responded on September 20, 2018.

Defendant

(ECF No. 94.)

For

the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a March 14, 2015, car collision between
Dowdy and Pickens.
at

trial

were

the

(ECF No. 62 at 4.)
extent

and

attributable to the collision.1

The only contested issues

nature

of

Pickens’s

injuries

The court held a jury trial in

this matter from August 6, 2018, through August 9, 2018.

At the

conclusion of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
Pickens and awarded $6,528.29 for damages attributable to his
1

The parties also initially contested whether Dowdy’s conduct was
reckless such that punitive damages would be appropriate. After
the close of Pickens’s proof, the court granted judgment as a
matter of law in favor of Dowdy on this issue. (ECF No. 78.)

medical expenses.
day.

(ECF No. 82.)

The court entered judgment that

(ECF No. 87.)
Pickens thereafter filed the present motion.

(ECF No. 92.)

Pickens asserts no reasonable jury could have concluded that his
neck surgeries were not necessitated by the injuries he sustained
to his neck in the collision.

(Id. at 5.)

Specifically, Pickens

argues that the evidence at trial, including the testimony of
Pickens and Dr. Weaver, his treating physician, regarding injuries
sustained to his left arm and shoulder, were never sufficiently
refuted by Dowdy or her expert physician, Dr. Feild.

(Id. at 6-7.)

Pickens argues that the low amount of damages for past medical
expenses is inconsistent with this uncontroverted evidence and
thus, a new trial is appropriate.

(Id. at 7.)

In response, Dowdy

asserts that Pickens did not list any complaints at the scene of
the collision, nor was he concerned about injuries immediately
following the collision.

(ECF No. 94 at 2.)

Pickens returned to

work the following week, and did not seek treatment for until the
next Friday, where he exhibited a full range of motion in his neck
and left shoulder.

(Id. at 2-3.)

Over eight months of treatment,

he reported improvement in his left shoulder such that by June
2015, his treatment records did not mention the shoulder.
3.)

(Id. at

Only in November 2015 did Pickens identify new pain in his

left side.

(Id.)

Dr. Feild testified that this new pain could be

attributable to a pre-existing degenerative condition of the spine,
-2-

as opposed to any damage caused by the collision.

(Id. at 3-4.)

These medical records and the opinion of Dr. Feild contradicted Dr.
Weaver’s testimony.

Dowdy also points out that Pickens’s two

surgeries, for which he sought compensation at trial, occurred
following his complaints in November 2015 and January 2016.
at 5.)

(Id.

And, Dowdy submitted at trial that Pickens’s initial

emergency room visit resulted in $4273.29 in medical bills, and he
also subsequently received treatment at OrthoMemphis.

(Id. at 6.)

Dowdy asserts that the jury’s award of damages could reasonably
correspond with these bills.
II.

(Id. at 6-7.)
ANALYSIS

After a jury trial, a court may grant a new trial “for any of
the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in
actions at law in the courts of the United States.”
P. 59(a)(1)(A).

Fed. R. Civ.

A new trial is appropriate when the jury reaches a

seriously erroneous result as evidenced by (1) the verdict being
against the clear weight of the evidence; (2) the damages being
excessive; or (3) the trial being unfair to the moving party in
some fashion, i.e., the proceedings being influenced by prejudice
or bias.

Cummins v. BIC USA, Inc., 727 F.3d 506, 509–10 (6th Cir.

2013) (citing Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l,
Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 414 (6th Cir. 2012)) (internal quotation marks
and brackets omitted).
not

be

granted

unless

Furthermore, “a motion for a new trial will
the

moving
-3-

party

suffered

prejudice.”

Tompkin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 362 F.3d 882, 891 (6th Cir.
2004).

The party seeking a new trial has the burden to show

harmful prejudice.

Simmons v. Napier, 626 Fed. App’x 129, 132 (6th

Cir. 2015) (citing Tobin v. Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc., 993 F.2d
528, 541 (6th Cir. 1993)).

The Sixth Circuit has explained that

“the governing principle in the district court's consideration of a
motion for a new trial is whether, in the judgment of the trial
judge, such course is required in order to prevent an injustice . .
. .”

Park W. Galleries, Inc. v. Hochman, 692 F.3d 539, 544 (6th

Cir. 2012) (quoting Davis by Davis v. Jellico Cmty. Hosp. Inc., 912
F.2d 129, 133 (6th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The party seeking a new trial thus bears “a heavy burden.”

Miller

v. Am. President Lines, Ltd., 989 F.2d 1450, 1466 (6th Cir. 1993).
The court finds that Pickens has not met this burden.

The

jury could reasonably construe the evidence at trial as showing
that Pickens made no complaint at the scene of the collision,
returned to work a full week immediately after, and did not seek
treatment for nearly a week.

(ECF No. 94 at 2.)

Also, after

seeking treatment, Pickens exhibited a full range of motion in his
neck and left shoulder.

The jury could also view the evidence as

showing that not until November 2015, almost eight months after the
collision, did Pickens report new issues with his upper left body
and arm.

Furthermore, Dr. Feild testified that Pickens exhibited a

degenerative spine condition which could cause these new symptoms.
-4-

Pickens’s initial emergency room and subsequent treatment bills
were presented to the jury at trial.

The jury, as the finder of

fact, was entitled to consider the totality of this evidence,
assess its credibility, and assign it weight in reaching its
conclusion.

A review of the evidence submitted at trial reveals

that ample, probative evidence supported the jury’s verdict and
award of damages.
suffered prejudice.
F.3d at 891.

There is likewise no indication that Pickens
See Simmons, 626 Fed. App’x 132; Tompkin, 362

Pickens has failed thus to establish any reason which

could warrant a new trial.
Cummins, 727 F.3d at 509–10.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A);
Accordingly, Pickens’s motion is

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
United States Magistrate Judge
September 28, 2018
Date

-5-