Julie Roy v. Pal Development Group, Inc.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-1160

JULIE ROY

VERSUS

PAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2013-2555 ‘K’
HONORABLE PATRICK LOUIS MICHOT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

James P. Lambert
A Law Corporation
P. O. Box 53083
Lafayette, LA 70505-3083
(337) 261-3737
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Julie Roy

Bruce D. Beach
Law Offices of Keith S. Giardina
9100 Bluebonnet Centre Blvd., Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
(225) 293-7272
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
PAL Development Group, Inc.

SAUNDERS, Judge.

This is a personal injury case wherein a jury awarded the plaintiff damages.

The plaintiff appeals, alleging that the jury’s award for future medical expenses

was manifestly erroneous because it ignored uncontradicted and credible medical

testimony by the plaintiff’s treating physician.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

This action arises out of a personal injury claim on behalf of the plaintiff,

Julie Roy, against a Louisiana corporation, PAL Development Group, Inc. (PAL).

PAL was doing business as a retail business offering massage services under the

business name of Massage Envy.

On May 25, 2012, Roy went to Massage Envy for a ninety-minute massage.

Prior to beginning the massage, the massage therapist raised the table that Roy was

lying upon due to the therapists’ height being over six feet. After approximately

forty-five minutes, Roy terminated the massage. The therapist left the room to

allow Roy privacy to get dressed, but failed to lower the massage table back to its

original height. The massage room was dark, and Roy lost her balance when she

was attempting to get off of the massage table due to the fact that the massage table

was still raised while she anticipated that it had been lowered to its original height.

As a result, Roy fell and was injured.

Roy dressed and reported the incident to the management of Massage Envy.

As a result of her fall, Roy contends that she experienced pain in her knee,

shoulder, back, and neck.

On May 17, 2013, Roy filed suit against PAL. The matter was tried before a

jury on May 11-13, 2015. The jury apportioned the fault between Roy and PAL on

a 50/50 basis. It awarded Roy past medical expenses, general damages, and

$65,000.00 for future medical expenses. Roy appeals and raises a single

assignment of error. Roy contends that the jury failed to award future medical

expenses in a sufficient amount given the uncontradicted testimony from her

treating physician.

DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS:

Roy contends that the award of $65,000.00 for future medical expenses by

the jury constitutes an abuse of discretion. We disagree.

Appellate adjudication of the adequacy of an award for future medical

expenses is subject to the manifest error standard of review. Menard v. Lafayette

Ins. Co., 09-1869 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So.3d 996.

Roy asserts that the testimony of Dr. Lindmann was uncontradicted and

credible in establishing her future medical expenses. As such, according to Roy,

the only reasonable finding for the jury was to award her the amount suggested by

Dr. Lindmann.

Roy points out that when specifically asked about future medical treatment,

Dr. Lindmann opined that Roy would need four visits per year with he or Dr.

Gillespie, a pain management physician, at approximately $75 per visit, physical

therapy about three times a year, each time four weeks in duration, at

approximately $2,200.00 per four week regiment, injections about three times

yearly at a cost of $1,000.00 per injection. When multiplied by Roy’s life

expectancy of twenty-six more years, the doctor visits would cost $7,800.00,

physical therapy would cost $171,600.00, and injections would cost $78,000.00.

This results in a sum of $257,400.00 for future medical expenses.

However, in more thoroughly reviewing Dr. Lindmann’s testimony, we find

that he was presented with medical records for physical therapy received by Roy

for pain in her neck and low back secondary to “ddd” or degenerative disc disease,

according to Dr. Michele Kettles, a physician with the Cooper Clinic who treated
2

Roy. Those records also stated that Roy’s chief complaint was “long-standing

neck, shoulder, and lower back pain” and that her pain was from a type of injury

described as an “exacerbation of preexisting injury.” These records provide a

reasonable basis for the jury to have found that not all of Roy’s future medical

expenses described by Dr. Lindmann were attributable to the injury suffered from

the fall.

Further, according to Dr. Lindmann, Roy was responding very well to

physical therapy. Given this improvement over time, the jury could reasonably

have found that Roy’s pain would likely diminish over time, necessitating less

medical treatment than that described by Dr. Lindmann. Finally, with regard to

spinal injections, Roy has never had any such injections. The reason spinal

injections were never performed on Roy is her use of a medication that prevents

blood clots. This anti-clotting medicine was prescribed to her due to a mini-stroke

she suffered in the past. Dr. Lindmann stated that Roy would have to discontinue

use of that medicine in order to receive the injections. He also stated that he was

hesitant to ask her to quit using the anti-clotting medication because he feared she

would suffer another mini-stroke. Given this testimony by Dr. Lindmann, the jury

could reasonably have found that Roy failed to prove that she was likely to receive

any spinal injections.

Accordingly, given a thorough review of the record, we find that a

reasonable basis exists for the jury to award Roy $65,000.00 in future medical

expenses. As such, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit.

CONCLUSION:

Appellant, Julie Roy, raises a single assignment of error. We find no merit

to that assigned error. As such, we affirm the jury’s verdict and assess all costs of

these proceedings to Julie Roy.
3

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules– Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

4