|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
R>
Dr. Ray Rozema, Lindberg's cardiologist, testified that due to the multiple blockages and advanced coronary disease, a coronary artery bypass operation was performed in 1996. After Lindberg's second heart attack in 2000, another cardiac catheterization disclosed that Lindberg had developed significant blockages in the original arteries and "rapid progression" of heart disease in the inserted bypasses. Dr. Rozema testified that while stress can probably aggravate coronary heart disease, it does not cause deterioration in pump function. He discounted the possibility that stress alone could cause heart disease, noting that stress "doesn't cause blockages to develop in arteries."
Significantly, Hancock's testimony was the only evidence the jury received on economic damages. Hancock conceded that if Lindberg were to retire earlier than age 72, his calculations would change accordingly.
Had Lindberg been a middle-aged man in reasonably good health, the jury might have been justified in concluding that he was reasonably certain to have continued working for nine or 10 more years. However, the jury here was calculating lost wages for a 62-year-old man with a variety of medical ailments and a disquieting medical history. Under these circumstances, Lindberg needed to produce some evidence, such as the opinion of a medical expert, to support the jury's implied finding of continued employment for nine more years. That evidence was not presented; nor did the jury receive some other "satisfactory method for obtaining a reasonably proximate estimation of the damages." (Noble, supra, 90 Cal.App.2d at p. 746.)
Without evidence from which the jury could estimate the amount of time Lindberg was reasonably certain to continue working, the half- million dollar award of economic damages is unsupported by substantial evidence.
For these reasons, the economic damages award, which was based solely on Hancock's calculations reflecting loss of future earnings, must be vacated.
B. Non-economic Damages
Although the jury rendered a separate award for non-economic damages, our reversal of the economic damages award compels reversal of the entire compensatory damages award, for the following reasons.
The jury was instructed that if it returned a verdict against defendants, the award should include "non-economic damages, as follows: [ ] Non-economic damages include reasonable compensation for any fears, anxiety, and any other emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff and for similar suffering reasonably certain to be experienced in the future for the same cause." (Italics added.)
"It cannot be presumed on appeal that the jury ignored a proper instruction on damages." (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 953, disapproved on another ground in White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 574, fn. 4.) Thus, we must assume the jury factored in bo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|