Background
Anna Bassett sued Perry Morine for negligence arising from an accident that caused neck injuries inhibiting her range of motion and causing ongoing pain. As part of her treatment protocol, Bassett underwent medial branch blocks and radio frequency ablations—procedures used in combination to diagnose and mitigate nerve pain. The jury returned a verdict including $2,000,000 for future medical expenses.
At trial, testimony established that Bassett would need these treatments anywhere from every six months to once every other year for the rest of her life. Morine moved for remittitur, and after a hearing, the trial court reduced the future medical expenses award to $1,274,433.71. Bassett rejected the remittitur and appealed rather than accepting the reduced amount.
The Court’s Holding
The Second DCA affirmed the remittitur. The court found that the trial court properly analyzed the record evidence regarding treatment frequency, per-procedure costs, and Bassett’s life expectancy to determine the maximum amount a reasonable jury could have awarded. The $2 million figure exceeded what the evidence could support even under the most favorable assumptions regarding treatment frequency. The remitted amount of $1,274,433.71 represented the upper bound of what the evidence supported—calculated using the most frequent treatment schedule testified to and the actual costs documented in the record.
The court explained that remittitur is appropriate when a verdict exceeds the maximum amount a jury could reasonably have awarded based on the evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the remitted figure at the evidentiary ceiling.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court may remit future medical expenses awards that exceed the maximum supportable by the evidence regarding treatment frequency, cost, and life expectancy.
- The remitted amount should represent the upper bound of what the evidence supports—not an average or most-likely figure—preserving the jury’s prerogative to award at the high end of the range.
- When a plaintiff rejects remittitur, the appellate court reviews whether the original verdict exceeded the evidentiary ceiling, not whether the remitted amount was correct.
Why It Matters
This case provides important guidance for personal injury trial lawyers on both sides regarding future medical damages. For plaintiffs’ counsel, it underscores the need to present specific, quantified evidence tying treatment frequency and costs to life-expectancy calculations—vague testimony about “ongoing” treatment may not support large awards. For defense counsel, the case demonstrates that remittitur remains a viable tool for challenging excessive future-damages verdicts without requiring a new trial. The evidentiary-ceiling approach ensures that remittitur corrects only for speculation while preserving reasonable jury discretion.