Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital EditionVermont Supreme Court Upholds Minimal Pain and Suffering Award, Bars Workers’ Comp Details From Jury
A recent Vermont Supreme Court decision highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when attempting to overturn a jury verdict based on allegedly inadequate noneconomic damages and perceived jury confusion regarding collateral sources like workers’ compensation.
The court affirmed a trial judge’s denial of an injury worker’s motion for a new trial, upholding a jury verdict that awarded substantial economic damages but minimal pain and suffering compensation. The ruling in Justin Tiedemann vs. Bernard Wheeler & Catherine Wheeler reinforces the strict boundaries around introducing liability coverage and workers’ compensation subrogation into jury deliberations, preserving the principle that such factors should not influence liability or damage calculations.
The dispute originated when a delivery courier slipped and fell on a snow-covered board while delivering a package to a residential property. The fall resulted in a broken ankle that required two surgeries. The courier filed a premises liability lawsuit against the homeowners.
At trial, the jury applied the concept of comparative negligence, finding the courier 40% at fault and the homeowners 60% at fault. The jury awarded full economic damages for medical expenses and lost wages, but awarded only $5,000 for noneconomic damages, which encompass pain and suffering.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the minimal noneconomic damage award for a severe injury indicated a compromised verdict, a situation where divided jurors improperly trade votes on liability in exchange for lower damage awards. The plaintiff also contended that the jury was confused by instructions regarding his workers’ compensation benefits. He argued the court should have explicitly informed the jury that he was legally obligated to repay his workers’ compensation carrier from any trial award, fearing the jury assumed he would receive a double recovery.
The defendant homeowners countered that the jury reasonably weighed the conflicting medical evidence regarding the plaintiff’s recovery. They also maintained that introducing the mechanics of workers’ compensation subrogation would improperly prejudice the jury.
The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments, emphasizing that juries have broad discretion to weigh conflicting medical testimony and assess the credibility of pain and suffering claims. Because the defendants presented expert testimony indicating a straightforward surgery and full recovery, the court concluded that the jury’s lower noneconomic damage award was reasonably calculated.
Highlighting the separation of duties between the judge and the jury, the court noted that it would “not second-guess the jury’s determination of credibility.” Addressing the insurance issue, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision to instruct the jury not to speculate about whether the parties had liability insurance or whether the plaintiff received workers’ compensation.
The Vermont court reaffirmed the general legal rule that the deliberate injection of insurance into a negligence case is immaterial and highly prejudicial. Informing the jury about the plaintiff’s obligation to repay a workers’ compensation lien would violate this standard by improperly factoring collateral insurance benefits into the jury’s damage assessment.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. By denying the plaintiff’s request for a new trial, the court allowed the original jury verdict and the corresponding damage award to stand.
View the decision here. &
