Besses v. Killian

• Decision Date: 27 January 2023
• Docket Number: M2021-01121-COA-R3-CV
• Parties: CIERA BESSES v. JAMES KILLIAN
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

CIERA BESSES
v.
JAMES KILLIAN

No. M2021-01121-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

January 27, 2023

Session September 8, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 18C2174 Joe Binkley, Jr., Judge.

This case arises out of a vehicular accident between Ciera Besses ("Plaintiff") and James Killian ("Defendant"). Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages, seeking compensation for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. Defendant admitted fault but challenged the reasonableness and necessity of certain medical, hospital, and doctor bills itemized by Plaintiff. Defendant also contended that some of Plaintiff's claimed injuries were not causally related to the accident. The jury awarded $16,720 to Plaintiff in damages, which represented $12,720 for medical expenses; $3,000 for past physical pain and mental suffering; $1,000 for past loss of enjoyment of life, and $0.00 for future physical pain and suffering and future loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff filed a motion for additur and/or new trial, which the trial court denied. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the trial court erred by denying her motion for a new trial. We have determined it did not. Thus, we affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

Shelley S. Breeding and Adam R. Duggan, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ciera Besses.

C. Michael Becker, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, James Killian.

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the Court in which W. NEAL MCBRAYER and JEFFREY USMAN, JJ., joined.

OPINION

FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 14, 2017, Plaintiff was driving her car on I-440 in Nashville, Tennessee, when she encountered early-morning traffic, causing her to slow significantly.

1

The driver behind her, Defendant, failed to notice that traffic had slowed and rear-ended Plaintiff's car. The two drivers were able to pull their cars to the side of the interstate. The police came to the scene and made a report. Neither party required medical attention, and both drivers drove their respective vehicles away from the accident.

Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in which she contends that she sustained numerous injuries as a result of the accident, including a bruised right knee, a neck strain, a lower back strain, a concussion, and chronic headaches, including migraines. The complaint stated that Plaintiff was treated by several doctors, including a primary care physician, an orthopedic physician, and a neurologist, and that she was treated with physical therapy and several different medications. The complaint also exhibited medical bills Plaintiff incurred.

Defendant filed an answer in which he admitted fault but denied that the accident was the cause of all of Plaintiff's alleged injuries. As one of his affirmative defenses, Defendant asserted that "the nature and extent of the alleged damages, if any, is specifically in dispute and thus a genuine issue to be determined by this Court." Defendant also filed a motion giving notice pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 24-5-113(b) that he intended to "contest the reasonableness and/or necessity of all medical, hospital and doctor bills itemized by Plaintiff." The motion specifically challenged three charges by Plaintiff's primary care physician, Dr. Karin Moolman, that related to a preventative wellness visit that included her annual physical exam and bloodwork panels related to reported menstrual irregularity and weight gain. Defendant also asserted in the motion that "the mere fact a medical expense may be reasonable, or even necessary, to treat a particular malady, does not abrogate the requirement that Plaintiff must still prove the subject expenses are causally related to the action and/or the result of the claimed negligent conduct."^[1]

The case was tried before a jury over two days. Plaintiff and Defendant testified, and each presented evidence from medical experts. Plaintiff testified that she realized immediately following the accident that she suffered a bruised right knee with swelling, a neck strain, a lower back strain, and a concussion. She states she developed a headache immediately after the accident that worsened throughout the day; however, she declined medical attention immediately following the accident. After taking over-the-counter medicines for a few days, which did not abate the headaches, she began to suffer from light sensitivity and nausea. As a consequence, she went to the emergency department where she states she was diagnosed with a concussion, a lumbosacral (low back) strain, and a

2

cervical (neck) strain. Thereafter, she sought the medical care of Dr. Narendra Singh, an orthopedic physician, and Dr. Charles Clarke, a neurologist, both of whom testified on her behalf.

Defendant testified that he did not require medical attention, and he went directly to work after the police officer completed the accident report at the scene. He also stated that he drove his vehicle, a 1998 Mazda compact pickup truck, for a year after the accident during which time he did not get it fixed nor did he have any mechanical problems. When asked how he would describe the impact of the collision, Defendant stated: "To me it felt more like a bump. I did stop, and I lurched forward a bit, but I didn't think it was anything particularly severe." He also testified, "There's no way I was going 50...