Leslie R. Roach v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-352

LESLIE R. ROACH, ET AL.

VERSUS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2001-5384
HONORABLE D. KENT SAVOIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, and
Michael G. Sullivan, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, dissents and assigns written reasons.

Frank M. Walker, Jr.
Plauche', Smith, & Nieset
Post Office Drawer 1705
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(337) 436-0522
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Norman J. Thigpen
2380 Lake Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 497-0123
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Leslie R. Roach
Larry A. Roach, Jr.

Barry A. Roach
Larry A. Roach, Inc.
2917 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 433-8504
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Leslie R. Roach
Larry A. Roach, Jr.

Michael K. Cox
Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel and Wilson
723 Broad Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 436-6611
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Leslie R. Roach
Larry A. Roach, Jr.

AMY, Judge.

A passenger in a vehicle claimed that she suffered injury to her neck when the

driver attempted to avoid a collision with another vehicle. Suit was filed against the

plaintiffs’ automobile liability insurer. Following a trial, the jury found that although

the driver was negligent, the passenger’s injury was not caused by the accident. The

plaintiffs appeal this finding as well as the trial court’s denial of their directed verdict

on liability and causation. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

This dispute involves an accident that allegedly occurred on October 21, 2000.

According to Larry Roach, Jr., he, his wife, Leslie Roach, and their two children,

Linsey and Larry A. Roach, III, were traveling to a football game in Natchitoches,

Louisiana. Mr. Roach, the driver of the vehicle, testified that as he was approaching

an intersection, he turned around to the rear of the vehicle, where Mrs. Roach was

seated, and asked her to get him a drink from the back of the vehicle. He stated that

when he returned his attention to the roadway, he did not notice that the traffic signal

had turned red. Consequently, he began proceeding through the intersection before

noticing that an eighteen-wheeler was entering the intersection as well. Mr. Roach

testified that because he did not have ample time to apply his brakes, he “swerved

very hard to the left, basically through the corridor into a skid. And [he] was able to

avoid the front of the 18-wheeler.”

As a result of this evasive maneuver, Mr. Roach stated that his vehicle was in

danger of colliding with another vehicle on the other side of the road. He explained

what transpired next:

I had to throw the car to the right. When I did, the car went into a skid
and starting rotating turning in a rotation sideways. And then I, you
know, I hit the brakes. And we ended up sliding through the
intersection and up against, what I would say is about a six-inch straight

curb and then a concrete embankment that went up like this (indicating).
So the car slid side -- skidded sideways, tires hit against that curb, jerked
very violently, and then kind of bounced up on the curb and stopped up
against the embankment.

Mr. Roach testified that “everybody was kind of shaken up. My wife told me that her

neck popped and was burning.” He explained that because they thought that the

injury to Mrs. Roach’s neck was just “a strain or sprain type thing[,]” the family

decided to continue their trip. Mr. Roach testified that they left the scene before

anyone could stop and offer assistance and that he did not feel the need to report the

accident.

Mrs. Roach maintained that not only was she in pain for the rest of the day but

that she “had neck pain and a headache for about one or two weeks.” She testified

that because of her nursing background, she became alarmed when:

all of a sudden, the pain from the neck started progressing down to my
shoulder and then down into my elbow, right elbow. And it was not
getting better with, you know, just trying to take some Advil, taking a
warm shower, those things, and it wasn’t getting any better.

According to Mrs. Roach’s testimony, she contacted her family doctor, Dr.

Arthur Primeaux, two to three weeks after the accident occurred. Mrs. Roach testified

that she engaged in a telephone conversation with Dr. Primeaux in which she “told

him that we had been involved in a little accident, but I was having neck pain

radiating down my shoulder into my arm.” She explained that Dr. Primeaux ordered

a stress test “to rule out a cardiac problem. And then we also discussed doing cervical

x-rays to check my neck.” Mrs. Roach subsequently met with Dr. Primeaux to

discuss the test results and the best course of treatment. According to her testimony,

the x-rays and the stress test came back normal, and Dr. Primeaux gave her an order

2

for physical therapy. The record indicates that Mrs. Roach attended physical therapy

for approximately three weeks.

Mrs. Roach testified that in December 2000, Dr. Primeaux ordered an MRI on

her cervical spine which showed that there were some abnormalities. He, therefore,

referred her to Dr. Alan Sconzert, a neurologist, whom she first visited on May 24,

2001. According to a report for that visit, Dr. Sconzert examined the December 2000

MRI and opined that she had herniated discs at the C4-C5, C5-C6, and C6-C7 levels.

Nerve conduction studies and an EMG were performed on May 29, 2001. According

to the record, Dr. Sconzert found that there was “evidence of a moderate left carpal

tunnel syndrome and mild chronic right C5-C6 radiculopathy.” He recommended that

Mrs. Roach meet with a neurosurgeon in regard to the cervical radiculopathy.

The record shows that Mrs. Roach first met with Dr. John Raggio, a

neurosurgeon, on August 10, 2001. Dr. Raggio testified that during that initial visit,

Mrs. Roach complained of “intermittent pain in her neck radiating to the right

shoulder and elbow with weakness of the grip in that right hand, after her neck was

popped while she was riding in a passenger car.” He further testified that he

“reviewed an MRI scan that showed a disc abnormality at C5-6 on the right side with

x-ray abnormalities on the regular x-ray showing narrowing and deterioration of the

disc at C4-5.” According to Dr. Raggio, he informed Mrs. Roach that she was a

candidate for surgery, but she stated that her symptoms were not severe enough to

warrant that option.

According to her medical records, Mrs. Roach did not seek any medical

treatment specifically for her neck for the next four years. When asked why she did

not visit any doctors in that time period, Mrs. Roach explained:

3

Well, because, again, through physical therapy they showed me different
exercises I could do, home treatments I could do, again, like a warm
shower, soaking in the warm tub, applying a warm heating pad,
sometimes an ice pack. Also, Dr. Raggio had showed me about the
traction. Taking over-the-counter medications like Advil, Tylenol. . . .
I had also been . . . prescribed Bextra and Celebrex, of which I work for
Drs. Brown, Chua, and Prestia at that time. And with their permission,
I got my samples for free which didn’t cost me any medicine [sic], so I
was able to access that.

Mrs. Roach stated that during this period, she was never completely pain free in that

she had what she called “flare ups,” where she would experience a lot of pain in her

neck that would eventually subside. However, she remarked that around June 2005,

she had a flare up that “just wasn’t easing up. Everything that I had been trying in the

past was not giving me any relief, or not substantial relief. It just increased with

time.”

Upon seeing Dr. Primeaux in September 2005, Mrs. Roach was once again

referred to Dr. Raggio, whom she saw in November 2005. Dr. Raggio reaffirmed his

position that surgery was the most viable solution to Mrs. Roach’s problems. Mrs.

Roach testified that in February 2006, she underwent surgery and that since then, she

is “[a] hundred percent better” in that she no longer has pain in her neck, shoulder,

or arm.

Mrs. Roach filed suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company, her automobile liability insurer, for the injury she sustained in the October

21, 2000 accident, as well as for her children’s loss of consortium claims. A jury trial

was held in October 2006. At the close of the evidence, the plaintiffs moved for a

directed verdict on liability and causation. The trial court denied the motion.

Following deliberation, the jury found that Mr. Roach’s actions on October 21, 2000

fell below the applicable standard of care. However, it did not find that Mrs. Roach

4

sustained injury as a result of the accident. The plaintiffs now appeal, designating the

following as error:

1. The Trial Court erred in failing to grant the plaintiffs a Directed
Verdict on liability and causation.

2. The Jury erred in failing to find Leslie suffered injury in the
October 21, 2000 accident.

3. The Jury erred in failing to award damages to the plaintiffs.

Discussion

Causation

The plaintiffs contend that the jury erred in failing to find that the October 21,

2000 accident caused Mrs. Roach’s neck injury. They reference Mrs. Roach’s

medical records and testimony, as well as the testimony of Mr. Roach and her treating

physicians.

In Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 36,439, p. 4

(La.App. 2 Cir. 10/23/02), 830 So.2d 379, 382, the court stated that “[w]hether the

accident caused the plaintiff’s injuries is a factual question which should not be

reversed on appeal absent manifest error.” “Credibility determinations, including the

evaluation and resolution of conflicts in expert testimony, are factual issues to be

resolved by the trier of fact, which should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence

of manifest error.” Id.

At trial, Mr. Roach testified that before the accident on October 21, 2000, Mrs.

Roach never complained of any injury to her neck, nor did she receive any medical

treatment for her neck. On the day of the accident, she relayed to him that her neck

popped and was burning. Mr. Roach testified that his wife told him that the pain

radiated into her shoulder, elbow, and arm. He further testified that she wanted to try

5

conservative treatment because she was concerned of the risks and complications that

may arise from having neck surgery. Mr. Roach explained that every couple of

months, Mrs. Roach would have a flare up.

Mr. Roach acknowledged that Mrs. Roach was involved in a car accident in

July 2001. He stated that she complained that the accident aggravated her neck in

that she had “a little stiffness and soreness.” Mrs. Roach did not seek any medical

treatment or file any claim or lawsuit for her injuries. According to Mr. Roach, in

February 2002, his wife was involved in another car accident. “[S]he complained that

it made her neck bother her a little bit.” Mr. Roach testified that in September 2005,

his wife saw Dr. Primeaux because she was experiencing new symptoms that were

not going away, and she was becoming concerned. After seeing Dr. Raggio in

November 2005, she decided to undergo surgery, which was ultimately performed in

February 2006.

At trial, Mrs. Roach testified similarly to her husband insofar as she maintained

that she did not have any neck injuries prior to the October 21, 2000 accident that

required medical treatment. She insisted that on the day of the accident, she “felt an

immediate pop and burning in [her] neck. Very painful.” Mrs. Roach explained that

despite her pain, the family continued on their trip because she did not want to

deprive her children of certain experiences related to the football outing.

According to Mrs. Roach, she had pain in her neck for approximately one or

two weeks that “started progressing down to my shoulder and then down into my

elbow, my right elbow.” She estimated that two to three weeks after the accident, she

called and visited Dr. Primeaux and explained the problems she had been having as

a result of the accident.

6

Dr. Primeaux testified that when he spoke on the telephone with Mrs. Roach

in November 2000, she informed him that she had been in an accident. He explained

that he ordered a stress test based on “the pain she described” and that because she

was a diabetic, he “wanted to be sure that there was not any involvement with the

heart.” The stress test came back normal. Dr. Primeaux testified that when he

subsequently saw Mrs. Roach, she complained of neck pain radiating down into her

arms and numbness in her hands. He testified that he did not write down in his

records that she had been involved in an accident. Rather the record for that visit

contained the notation “Has been under stress.” Dr. Primeaux explained the omission

of the accident from the records stating, “I know that we had talked about the

McNeese game at that time, too. I’m unsure why I didn’t write it, but I know what

we had discussed and I know there was an accident at that time.” On cross-

examination, Dr. Primeaux testified that if the patient tells him his or her injuries

and/or the source of those injuries, he normally writes it down if the chart is there;

otherwise he tries to remember.1

Dr. Primeaux testified that he gave Mrs. Roach some anti-inflammatory

medication, but that it was not effective in alleviating her symptoms. Therefore, he

ordered cervical x-rays which were normal, except for mild arthritis and degenerative

changes at the C6-7 level. An MRI of Mrs. Roach’s cervical spine showed some

abnormalities. Therefore, Dr. Primeaux referred her to Dr. Sconzert, who opined that

1
Defense counsel noted that when Mrs. Roach saw Dr. Primeaux after being involved in a
car accident in February 2002, his records reflected such accident and resulting injuries. It was also
noted that Dr. Primeaux did not send her for a stress test. In response, Dr. Primeaux stated that
following the February 2002 accident, she “was not complaining of chest pain or any type thing like
that.” Defense counsel countered by asking if Mrs. Roach was complaining of chest pain in
November of 2000. Dr. Primeaux answered that she had complained of neck, chest, and shoulder
discomfort.

7

Mrs. Roach had three herniated discs and recommended that she follow-up with Dr.

Raggio.

According to Dr. Raggio’s testimony, after reviewing an MRI performed in

December 2000, he opined that “there was primarily a disc abnormality at C5-6.”

When Dr. Raggio was asked if some of the findings on the MRI were degenerative,

he responded affirmatively, explaining that “when you see disc space narrowing, bone

spur formation, and loss of water content within the disc, that’s signs of deterioration

of the disc material, which is a normal process of aging.” He further explained that

these things can make a person more susceptible to a traumatic injury in that area. Dr.

Raggio revealed that because Mrs. Roach was not reporting any pain at the time, he

recommended surgery if her symptoms returned or persisted.

Mrs. Roach testified that since the October 21, 2000 accident, she had flare

ups “off and on” and “then [she] would get okay.” She stated that she utilized

physical therapy exercises, home treatments, traction, and medication to alleviate her

pain. When asked if any physician had prescribed medication to her during that

period, she answered, “I was prescribed it, but I did not need to call for refills or for

a prescription because I was able to obtain the samples through my employer.” Upon

further questioning, she admitted that she was not given a written prescription from

any physician; rather, she informed her physicians that she would be able to procure

the medicine through her employer.

Mrs. Roach confirmed that she was involved in an accident in July 2001, which

aggravated her neck “[v]ery little.” Another accident occurred in February 2002, in

which her neck was “getting a little aggravated, a little stiff[.]” She testified that in

June 2005, she experienced a flare up that “just wasn’t easing up.” She revisited Dr.

8

Primeaux in September 2005, complaining of “strange tightness in [her] right neck,

shoulder and forearm for the last two weeks.” He referred her back to Dr. Raggio.

Dr. Raggio stated that when he saw Mrs. Roach in November 2005, she

complained of “right sided neck pain radiating to the right shoulder, outside of the

arm, tingling of the hand.” She informed him that “she’s had problems in the past

similar to this, but this is worsened since June of ’05.” Dr. Raggio reviewed a new

MRI, which showed that “it looked like it was a little bit worse at C6-7 than what [he]

had seen previously.” In a report written to Dr. Primeaux dated November 7, 2005,

Dr. Raggio opined that Mrs. Roach had “cervical spondylosis with radiculitis.” At

trial, Dr. Raggio explained that spondylosis is the “degeneration of the spinal discs.”

According to Dr. Raggio, Mrs. Roach agreed to his recommendation of surgery;

surgery was performed on February 23, 2006.

With regard to the source of Mrs. Roach’s neck injury, Dr. Raggio testified that

he did not know whether she received any injury from this accident. However, he

explained that based on the history given to him by Mrs. Roach, it was his opinion

that the car accident on October 21, 2000 caused her injury and subsequent

symptoms. Nevertheless, after examining the December 2000 MRI, he was certain

that the bone spurs and the loss of water in her discs were incapable of being caused

by an accident that happened six weeks earlier.

Dr. Raggio indicated that he did not know that Mrs. Roach was involved in two

subsequent car accidents in which she claimed that she aggravated her neck injury.

In fact, he deemed it quite odd that she did not disclose her July 2001 accident

because it occurred only a few weeks before her first appointment with him. He

9

stated that she would have been more susceptible to re-injury as a result of this

accident and that all of the accidents, combined, could cause wear and tear.

Based on the foregoing evidence, we find that there is a reasonable basis for

the jury to have found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the October 2000

accident caused Mrs. Roach’s injury. Although Mrs. Roach claimed that she

immediately was in pain following the accident, she and her family continued on their

trip, and Mrs. Roach waited approximately two weeks before she sought treatment

with Dr. Primeaux. Although both Dr. Primeaux and Mrs. Roach maintained that she

told him of the accident, there is no such notation in his records. To the contrary,

there is a notation that states that she “has been under stress.” Dr. Primeaux asserted

that he ordered a stress test because Mrs. Roach had chest complaints and because of

her diabetic condition. However, neither the record nor Mrs. Roach’s testimony

indicated such complaints. Dr. Sconzert opined that Mrs. Roach had three herniated

discs whereas Dr. Raggio opined that there was a disc abnormality at the C5-6 level.

Of importance is the fact that Dr. Raggio discovered problems with her discs that he

concluded were degenerative in nature and could not possibly be caused by a recent

car accident.

The jury heard testimony that although Mrs. Roach periodically saw Dr.

Primeaux for various ailments in the years following her accident, she did not

specifically seek medical treatment for her neck for four years. Mrs. Roach’s

explanation was that she was utilizing conservative treatment and that, although she

was prescribed medication, she was able to obtain free samples of medication from

her employer. Mrs. Roach admitted that no physician had prescribed her medication

for her neck injury. There was also testimony that Mrs. Roach had two subsequent

10

car accidents, which she claimed mildly aggravated her neck; yet, she failed to share

this information with Dr. Raggio, even though the first subsequent accident occurred

only weeks before her first appointment with him.

Given the circumstances, we find that the jury’s determination regarding

causation was not manifestly erroneous. Our resolution of this assignment of error

pretermits discussion on the awarding of damages.

This assignment is without merit.

Directed Verdict

The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for

directed verdict on liability and causation. Specifically, they assert in brief that Mr.

Roach “admitted in his testimony that the accident was completely his fault and no

one else contributed to it (judicially confessing his negligence and liability). He

further admitted that his fault and negligence was the cause of [Mrs. Roach’s] injuries

(judicially confessing his fault and negligence was the cause of [Mrs. Roach’s]

injuries).” According to the plaintiffs, they “presented witness testimony, expert

testimony and exhibits, which presented facts so overwhelmingly in favor of the

plaintiffs that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict.”

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1810 provides:

A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the
evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the
motion is not granted, without having reserved the right so to do and to
the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a
directed verdict that is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even
though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. A
motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.
The order of the court granting a motion for a directed verdict is
effective without any assent of the jury.

11

In determining whether to grant a directed verdict, this court stated in

Melancon v. Lafayette Insurance Co., 05-762, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/29/06), 926

So.2d 693, 704, writs denied, 06-974, 06-1006 (La. 6/16/06), 929 So.2d 1291, 1293:

Article 1810 does not establish a standard for the grant of a
directed verdict, but these standards have been jurisprudentially
established. In Carter v. Western Kraft Paper Mill, 94-524, pp. 4-5
(La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94), 649 So.2d 541, 544 (citations omitted), this
court outlined the applicable rules:

[A] directed verdict should only be granted when the facts
and inferences point so strongly in favor of one party that
the court believes reasonable people could not reach a
contrary verdict. It is appropriate, not when there is a
preponderance of evidence, but only when the evidence
overwhelmingly points to one conclusion. The propriety
of granting a directed verdict must be evaluated in light of
the substantive law underpinning the plaintiff’s claims.

Under the foregoing legal principles the question is
not whether in our view the plaintiff has proven his case
against defendants by a preponderance of the evidence, but
rather, whether, upon viewing the evidence submitted, we
conclude that reasonable people could not have reached a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants. . . .

Questions of credibility should not be resolved by a
directed verdict. Making credibility evaluations is one of
the primary duties of a jury and the trial court may not take
this duty from the jury unless the party opposing the
directed verdict has failed to produce sufficient evidence
upon which reasonable and fair-minded persons could
disagree. Evaluations of credibility play no part in
reaching a decision on a motion for directed verdict.

In denying the plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict, the trial court explained:

[W]hen a motion is filed, the trial court may not take the duty of making
credibility evaluations from the Jury unless a party opposing a directed
verdict has failed to produce sufficient evidence under which reasonable
and fair minded persons could agree.

And that’s the situation I feel like I’m in here. There are some
credibility issues and I don’t feel comfortable taking that away from the
Jury’s deliberations. So your Motion for Directed Verdict is denied on
both issues.

12

At the outset, we note that “a judicial confession is a party’s explicit admission

of an adverse factual element and that it has the effect of waiving evidence as to the

subject of the admission, of withdrawing the subject matter of the confession from

issue.” Abshire v. Belmont Homes, Inc., 04-1200, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/05), 896

So.2d 277, 280, writ denied, 05-862 (La. 6/3/05), 903 So.2d 458 (quoting Cheatham

v. City of New Orleans, 378 So.2d 369, 375 (La.1979) (emphasis added). Here, Mr.

Roach is neither a named plaintiff or defendant in this matter. Furthermore, any

admission on his part is not adverse to his interests insofar as the plaintiffs (his

family) would receive damages if the jury rendered a verdict in their favor.

We find that at the close of the plaintiffs’ case,2 there were credibility

determinations to be made regarding causation. Therefore, we conclude that the trial

court did not err in denying the directed verdict insofar as reasonable minds could

disagree on this issue. With regard to liability, we note that no witness, besides Mr.

Roach, testified as to how the accident happened. However, the question of whether

Mr. Roach was entirely responsible for the accident was a credibility determination

which was within the province of the jury to decide. Mr. Roach testified that the

accident was not reported and that the family left the scene before anyone could offer

assistance. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of the

motion for directed verdict on liability was not in error.

Accordingly, this assignment has no merit.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs

of these proceedings are assessed against the plaintiffs, Leslie R. Roach, et al.

AFFIRMED.

2
We note that the defendant did not call any witnesses. It did, however, introduce some of
Mrs. Roach’s medical records into evidence.

13

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-352

LESLIE R. ROACH, ET AL.

VERSUS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, dissenting.

An appellate court must give proper deference to the factual findings and

credibility determinations of a trial court. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989).

That principle is so well-entrenched that a citation is hardly required. That principle,

however, need not be adhered to if documents or objective evidence so greatly

preponderate that manifest error may exists. Butler v. Zapata Haynie, 92-71 (La.App.

3 Cir. 2/23/94), 633 So.2d 1274. A reading of the record in its entirety convinces me

that the jury was manifestly erroneous in failing to find the existence of an injury.

Mrs. Roach was examined by Dr. Raggio in August 2001 with

complaints of neck pain and numbness and tingling in the hand. Dr. Raggio reviewed

a December 2000 MRI performed by Dr. Sconzert, a neurologist. The MRI showed

a disc abnormality at the C5-6 level on the right side and the narrowing and

deterioration of the disc at C4-5. This MRI was administered before the July 2001

accident. According to Dr. Raggio, the MRI findings of December 2000 were

consistent with what he visually observed during surgery, i.e., a disc abnormality at

C5-6. Dr. Raggio’s Medical Provider Lien noted that the injuries for which Mrs.

Roach was being treated were injuries that occurred in October 2000. Granted, Dr.

Raggio’s testimony was somewhat equivocal. For instance, he testified that, other

than the history given by Mrs. Roach, he could not formulate an opinion on an injury

occurring in October 2000. Further, during cross-examination, he could not say

whether the MRI findings were caused by the October 21, 2000 accident. However,

on re-direct examination, the following was elicited:

Q. The October 2000 accident, if the patient in this case
reports a continuous unbroken chain of problems
from the October 2000 accident all the way through
to the 2006 surgery and you accept that as true, then
you would maintain your opinion that the accident
caused these problems and the need for surgery,
correct?

A. I think it is part of the causation, yes. I mean, I think
if there are other things that occurred of a traumatic
nature, they were probably contributory.

State Farm chose not to call any witnesses. Thus, Mrs. Roach’s

testimony went unchallenged. Dr. Raggio, in part, relied on her history and the

objective evidence to formulate an opinion on causation. Where there is no sound

reason for the rejection of testimony, an appellate court is not required to affirm “the

trier of fact’s refusal to accept as credible uncontradicted testimony or greatly

preponderant objectively-corroborated testimony . . . .” Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120,

1127.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. I would find the

existence of an injury and award appropriate damages consistent with the medical

evidence.

2