Hospadales v. McCoy, 01–16–00239–CV
| Decision Date | 12 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01–16–00239–CV,01–16–00239–CV |
| Citation | 513 S.W.3d 724 |
| Parties | Michael HOSPADALES and Loomis Armored US, LLC, Appellants v. Roy MCCOY, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Clifford L. Harrison, Carrie Schadle, MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C., Houston, TX, for Appellant.
Ryan Bormaster, R.B. BORMASTER & ASSOC, P.C., Houston, TX, Clinard J. Hanby, The Woodlands, TX, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Lloyd.
In this motor-vehicle-accident case, Michael Hospadales and Loomis Armored US, LLC, appeal a judgment based on a jury verdict, awarding Roy McCoy damages for past medical expenses, past lost earning capacity, and past pain and suffering, totaling $292,000. Raising five issues, Hospadales and Loomis contend (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to show that the accident caused McCoy's injuries; (2) the trial court erred by admitting McCoy's medical records and bills into evidence; (3) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's award of past lost earning capacity; (4) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's awards for past medical expenses and for pain and suffering; and (5) the evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that McCoy was not contributorily negligent.
We conclude that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
To earn a living, Roy McCoy transports cars from one location to another using a 30–foot articulated trailer, pulled by a pickup truck. On January 4, 2013, McCoy and his wife were traveling north on Interstate 45 on their way to pick up a car from an auction. McCoy was driving the truck and pulling the trailer in the second lane from the median wall. Also on the freeway that day was Michael Hospadales, who was driving an armored truck for his employer, Loomis Armored US, LLC.
The armored truck was equipped with a monitoring system, including a video camera that filmed the view of the road in front of the armored truck and some of its periphery. The monitoring system also recorded data related to Hospadales's operation of the vehicle. This data included the vehicle's speed, its longitudinal acceleration and deceleration, and its side-to-side movement. The monitoring system also recorded when Hospadales applied his brakes and when an impact with the vehicle occurred.
The video taken that day of the road in front of the armored vehicle shows that Hospadales was driving behind McCoy in the same lane. Hospadales changed lanes, moving to the left, innermost lane on the freeway. After he changed lanes, Hospadales's speed increased to 68 miles per hour, eight miles an hour over the speed limit. Hospadales was traveling faster than McCoy, and Hospadales proceeded to pass McCoy on McCoy's left. As Hospadales approached McCoy's vehicle, the video shows that the left side tires of McCoy's truck and trailer were on the white line between the lanes, but neither McCoy's truck nor the trailer appears to cross the line or leave McCoy's lane. At that point, Hospadales moved toward the shoulder of the road, which was on Hospadales's left. Hospadales continued to move past McCoy's trailer. The video shows the tires of McCoy's truck move to the right, off the white line, back into McCoy's lane. Hospadales navigated his vehicle to the right from the shoulder. The video then shows that the brake lights of the vehicle directly in front of Hospadales were activated. The data from the monitoring system on the armored truck indicates that Hospadales applied his brakes as he moved the armored truck to the right. At that point, Hospadales's vehicle entered McCoy's lane and hit the back, lower right side of McCoy's pickup truck. The impact caused McCoy's truck and trailer to jackknife and skid 500 feet. McCoy pushed hard on the brakes, and his truck and trailer came to a stop on the other side of the freeway.
McCoy was taken by ambulance to the emergency room where he complained of back pain, rating his pain an 8 out of 10. The medical records from the visit show that McCoy was diagnosed by the emergency room doctor with "[a] neck sprain, back & neck pain." The emergency room discharged McCoy to his home with medication and instructions to seek follow-up care.
Five days later, on January 9, 2013, McCoy sought care at Ultimate Choice Medical & Rehab Clinic where he was seen by Dr. G. Lagesse. McCoy's medical records from the clinic indicate that McCoy reported pain in his neck, lower back, and right knee. McCoy rated the intensity of his pain at 7 out of 10. He indicated that the pain was aggravated by walking, prolonged sitting, bending, and lifting. Under the heading "history of present illness," Dr. Lagesse wrote that McCoy had been in a motor vehicle accident and had sustained a "new" back and right knee injury. He noted that McCoy had pain in his back and neck, and McCoy reported pain and swelling of his right knee. Dr. Lagesse ordered an MRI of McCoy's lower back and an x-ray of his knee. Dr. Lagesse also referred McCoy to physical therapy three times a week.
On February 26, 2013, McCoy was seen by Dr. B. Perez, who is board certified in pain management. McCoy reported to Dr. Perez that he had been in a motor vehicle accident the previous month. Under McCoy's patient history, Dr. Perez wrote that McCoy "has pain in the neck, lower back radiating to the right leg and right knee that swells up with exertion." The doctor noted that McCoy's "[p]ain is rated as 8/10 and is associated with numbness, tingling and weakness." McCoy reported that the Dr. Perez discussed with McCoy the option of treating his back pain with epidural steroid injections but advised McCoy to continue with physical therapy.
McCoy was seen by Dr. J. White of Disability and Pain Consultants of Texas on April 23, 2013. Dr. White indicated in McCoy's medical records that McCoy had a "lumbar sprain strain injury" and a "cervical sprain strain injury (whiplash )" as a result of the motor vehicle accident that had occurred three months earlier. McCoy had indicated that pain in his lower back and knee was worsening and that he continued to have pain in his neck.
Dr. White indicated that the MRI showed McCoy had herniated discs in his neck. Among the MRI findings with regard to McCoy's lower back was an annular tear in the disc at the L5–S1 vertebrae. Dr. White also indicated that an MRI of McCoy's right knee showed that he had a torn meniscus.
Dr. White noted that McCoy had been receiving physical therapy for three months. The doctor recommended that McCoy continue physical therapy and indicated that McCoy was a candidate for cervical epidural steroid injections. Dr. White also indicated that McCoy may be referred "for orthopedic surgical assessment" regarding his torn meniscus.
McCoy attended physical therapy from January 11, 2013 to June 7, 2013; nonetheless, the pain in his neck, lower back, and knee continued. Dr. Perez gave McCoy an epidural steroid injection in his lower back on June 17, 2013 and another injection on November 3, 2013.
With regard to his knee, McCoy consulted Dr. J. Rodriguez, an orthopedic surgeon, on June 17, 2013. Dr. Rodriguez performed surgery to address the torn meniscus in McCoy's right knee on September 19, 2013. After his surgery, McCoy received physical therapy for his knee with his last treatment on October 18, 2013.
McCoy filed suit against Hospadales and Hospadales's employer, Loomis, asserting that Hospadales had negligently caused the auto accident. McCoy claimed that the accident had caused injury to his back, neck, and knee. He sought damages for medical expenses, lost earning capacity, and pain and suffering.
Trial began in December 2015. Before picking the jury, the trial court conducted a hearing at which the parties pre-admitted exhibits. McCoy offered Exhibits 8 through 21, which were the medical and billing records for the treatment he had received from the various medical providers following the accident. Hospadales and Loomis (collectively, "Loomis") objected to the admittance of the billing and medical records. Loomis asserted that the records were not relevant because "there's no evidence" that McCoy's "injuries were caused by the accident." The trial court agreed with Loomis that McCoy was required to prove that the accident "gave rise to [his] injury that gave rise to the [medical] treatment." The trial court, however, admitted McCoy's medical and billing records, indicating that Loomis had preserved its relevancy objection should McCoy not meet his burden to prove causation. The trial court also pointed out that, should McCoy fail to prove causation, Loomis could move for directed verdict after McCoy rested.
During trial, Loomis defended against McCoy's claims by asserting that McCoy, not Hospadales, had caused the accident. Loomis theorized that McCoy's trailer had crossed the white line and bumped the side of the armored truck as it passed. Loomis claimed that this caused its truck to then crash into McCoy's truck.
Loomis also asserted that the accident involved in this case had not caused McCoy's physical injuries. It claimed that McCoy's back and neck injuries were preexisting and had been caused by a 2010 car accident. Loomis pointed out that MRIs taken of McCoy's back and neck, following the 2010 accident, showed essentially the same injuries as those indicated in the MRIs taken following this accident. Loomis also asserted that the evidence was not sufficient to show that McCoy's knee injury had been caused by the accident.
To prove that Loomis had caused the accident, McCoy offered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine
...first tried the case, the jury awarded $178,000, which seems much less surprising for that kind of injury. See, e.g. , Hospadales v. McCoy , 513 S.W.3d 724, 729 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) ($292,000); Katy Springs & Mfg., Inc. v. Favalora , 476 S.W.3d 579, 587 (Tex. App.—H......
-
BMLA, Inc. v. Jordan
...in fact of her illness. But insistence on laboratory testing is a demand for medical certainty, which is not required. See Hospadales v. McCoy , 513 S.W.3d 724, 737 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.).Hasan testified that viral gastroenteritis is typically diagnosed by clinical ob......
-
Le v. United States
... ... other evidence, Hospadales v. McCoy , 513 S.W.3d 724, ... 742 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.), and the ... ...
-
Patino-Perez v. Howland
...to the "actual loss of income due to an inability to perform a specific job from the time of injury to the time of trial." Hospadales v. McCoy,513 S.W.3d 724, 743 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.); Dawson v. Briggs, 107 S.W.3d 739, 749 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); Strau......