Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesnegligencetrialverdictmotionexpert witness
appealtrialverdictmotionwill

Related Cases

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Keeper of Records of My Sister’s Place, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2002 WL 31341083, 2002 -Ohio- 5600
View Case »
Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal.App.4th 776, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 620, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4356, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5212
View Case »
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262, 64 USLW 2401, 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1061
View Case »
In re Kiley, 459 Mass. 645, 947 N.E.2d 1
View Case »
Mauzy v. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 611127
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pumphrey v. Empire Lath and Plaster, 332 Mont. 116, 135 P.3d 797, 2006 MT 99

Facts

The case arose from an automobile accident where Rick Lee Pagitt, while employed by Empire Lath and Plaster, rear-ended Lisa Pumphrey's stopped SUV, causing significant injuries to Pumphrey. Following the accident, Pumphrey was diagnosed with two herniated discs and dislocated ribs, leading to chronic pain that affected her ability to work and pursue her education. Empire admitted negligence but contested the severity and causation of Pumphrey's injuries during the trial.

Pumphrey suffered injury to her neck and back and was later diagnosed with two herniated discs and dislocated ribs. A doctor testified that Pumphrey would likely endure life-long pain due to her injuries. Witnesses testified that the chronic pain that Pumphrey suffered ultimately caused her to withdraw from law school and has prevented her from pursuing gainful employment.

Issue

1) Did the District Court err in denying Empire's motion for an independent medical examination? 2) Did the District Court have the authority to reconvene and re-poll the jury after discharging them?

The dispositive issues on appeal are: (1) whether the District Court erred in denying Empire's motion for an independent medical examination pursuant to Rule 35, M.R.Civ.P.; and (2) whether the District Court had authority to reconvene and re-poll the jury after discharging the jurors.

Rule

The court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court's ruling on a request for an independent medical examination and the authority to re-poll jurors after discharge.

We employ an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a district court's ruling on a request for an IME, pursuant to Rule 35, M.R.Civ.P., Henricksen v. State, 2004 MT 20, ¶ 51, 319 Mont. 307, ¶ 51, 84 P.3d 38, ¶ 51, and when reviewing the sanction a district court imposes for violation of a scheduling order, McKenzie v. Scheeler (1997), 285 Mont. 500, 507, 949 P.2d 1168, 1172.

Analysis

The court found that Empire failed to formally disclose their expert witness, Dr. Taylor, in a timely manner, which justified the trial court's denial of the independent medical examination. Additionally, the court ruled that once the jury was discharged and had left the courtroom, the trial court lost the authority to reassemble and poll the jurors, as this could potentially alter the verdict.

Empire never formally disclosed Dr. Taylor as an expert pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4), M.R.Civ.P. Even if we treated Empire's motion requesting an IME as an untimely formal disclosure, Empire does not attribute the tardiness of such 'disclosure' to surprise or any other good cause. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court properly exercised its discretion when it denied Empire's motion for an IME.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Pumphrey, concluding that the trial court did not err in its decisions regarding the independent medical examination and the re-polling of the jury.

We will not reverse a district court that reaches the correct result, even if for the wrong reason. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's entry of the verdict and denial of Empire's motion for a new trial.

Who won?

Lisa Pumphrey prevailed in the case, as the jury awarded her $3.9 million in damages, and the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decisions that favored her.

Empire now appeals. We affirm.

You must be