Marilyn McLeon, Pricsilla Bradley, Charlene Wilson, Carolyn Singletary, Clarence Harris, Diane Watson, Pamela Knighten, Leon Roberts and Emanual Bourgeois VS Vulcan Chemicals (2006CA0662 Consolidated With 2006CA0665 2006CA0663 2006CA0664 2006CA0666)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 0662 c w 2006 CA 0663 0666 MARIL YN MCLEON PRISCILLA BRADLEY CHARLENE SINGLETARY CLARENCE HARRIS DIANE WATSON PAMELAI NIGHTEN LEON ROBERTS AND EMANUAL BOURGEOIS VERSUS VULCAN CHEMICALS DATE OF JUDGMENT September 14 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 69 388 A 69 433 A 69 669 A 72 051 72 065 A PARISH OF ASCENSION STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE RALPH TUREAU JUDGE Jay A Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Parker Steve M Marks Baton Rouge James Penton Louisiana Franklin G Shaw Counsel for Plaintiffs New Orleans Louisiana Shelia Piper Appellants and ROlmie VallelY and Charles S Long Donaldsonville Louisiana C Myers Baton Rouge Louisiana Bradley Counsel for Defendant Vulcan Materials Appellee Company and Francis H Lococo Milwaukee Wisconsin John Dale Powers Counsel for Defendant Andrew P Sellers Industrial Coatings Appellee Contractors Inc Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE Disposition P ARRO KUHN AND DOWNING JJ AFFIRMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LA URCA RULE 2 16 1B N A KUHN J Plaintiffs the trial comi s Shelia appellants judgment incorporating personal injuries each sustained from the facilities of defendant for which it and defendant stipulated damages to were General instead their damages l gratification which cannot be result of their exposure to appellee Vulcan Materials aver that the or a chemical release and Company Vulcan Contractors ICC Inc jury s awards of general We affinn those which may not be fixed with they involve mental of intellectual a Vallery appeal jury s verdict which awarded damages for Appellants low are as a and Ronnie appellee Industrial Coatings liability abusively James Penton Piper or physical pain or physical enjoyment definitely measured in pecuniary exactitude suffering inconvenience the loss or monetary other losses of life Kaiser tenns v or life style Hardin 06 IThis litigation involves the claims of a multitude of plaintiffs The paliies agreed to try ten plaintiffs at a time In this paliicular group of ten plaintiffs appellants asseli it was fundamental error for the trial comi to conduct a bifurcated trial with their claims heard by the jury and those of the five plaintiffs whose damages were less that 50 000 heard simultaneously by the judge The gist of their complaint is that the jury was bombarded by accusations that the claims at issue and that appellees began the assault with references to bench were driven by attorney greed trial plaintiffs whose claims they contended were fraudulent and subsequently were dismissed during the proceedings Urging prejudicial enor they seek a de novo review of the evidence The trial comi conducted a single proceeding pursuant to all order ofthis cOUli In consideration of a writ taken on the issue of the trial cOUli s acceptallCe of stipulations that the claims offive of the ten plaintiffs scheduled for trial before the jury were less thall 50 000 which therefore WalTanted a bench trial see La C C P ali 1 1732 another panel of this court found no abuse of discretion But it ordered the claims of all ten plaintiffs me to proceed in the Sallle single proceeding with these five plaintiffs claims bifurcated and to be determined by the trial cOUli See In re unpublished Vulcan Litigation April writ action with this determination Ins 295 2d So writ denied 2001 Incidents 437 La 1974 La 7 04 1695 See La C C P ali 1736 see 04 1486 04 8 may be decided by the judge presence of the jury we note the record is replete 1st Cir 7 App 877 So 2d 986 Champagne by a jury while also issues may be tried Moreover insofar as the some La appellees with admonitions to v We find 04 2 an no error American Southern others in the Sallle trial guments made in the jury including in al the the that the arguments of cOUllsel were not to be considered as evidence and that a verdict could only be founded on testimonial alld documentary evidence Additionally the only non jury plaintiff whose case was tried in the presence of the jury gave testimonial and the trial judge did not announce his evidence of the same nature as the jury instructions advising jury plaintiffs decision until after the jury decline to conduct novo a de s verdict had been returned review 2 Accordingly we find no prejudice and 2092 9 p La about the disagree 07 11 4 953 So 2d 802 measure of general the award is in either direction assess for the effects of the 808 09 damages in Youn patiicular injury Maritime Overseas v a beyond that which particular circumstances that the appellate award Reasonable persons to frequently It is only when particular a reasonable trier of fact could the patiicular plaintiff under the increase 623 So 2d 1257 Corp court should 1261 denied 510 U S 1114 114 S Ct 1059 127 L Ed 2d 379 Vast discretion is accorded the trier of fact in La CC art rarely disturb an award of La 1993 fixing general damage general damages Thus the reviewing general damage reduce the or celi 1994 This vast discretion is such that 2324 1 case an appellate role of the awards court should cOUli in appellate awards is not to decide what it considers to be appropriate award but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the an trier of fact Kaiser 06 2092 at p 9 953 So 2d at 808 09 The initial inquiry in reviewing an award of trier of fact abused its discretion in assessing the a general damages is whether the amount detennination that the trier of fact has abused its of damages It is much discretion that only a after resOli to prior awards is appropriate and then only for the purpose of detennining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion Id 06 2092 at pp 9 10 953 So 2d at 809 The facts in dispute giving rise insofar as damages and facts April 3 2001 in the release of a this litigation are well known to the patiies and liability has been stipulated issue of on to medical causation an we accident OCCUlTed a twenty day trial simply iterate at the mixture of chemicals fi om J After Vulcan a the following premises reactor in are not on the salient which resulted the chloromethane production unit The organic compounds carbon the amount trial on April the paliiculates was were was Shelia to exposed chlorine healthcare testimony by or some carbon providers family members paliiculates is not on as at on each of well as Thus whether dispositive of the appeal Piper s Appeal Shelia specified Piper 2 000 awarded was was general damages totaling for past and future disability and past and future physical pain and suffering and mental as released was presented with ample evidence of its effects of well as Despite the lengthy amount of time spent from each individual and issues raised in this whether unreacted chlorine and contained in the chemical mixture that appellants including volumes accounts acid and four chlorinated also included in the released chemical mixture were the jury hydrochloric they dispute of each chemical released 3 2001 appellants On agree that released were the issue of what personal for parties all anguish fear and fright appeal factor the Ms um Piper ebutted stress contends the testimony jury s award previously dormant gastrointestinal problems at Piper who was forty golf Cali in conjunction with transmission advised her chemicals overhead She nine years old her work to evacuate as an and abusively immediately put 4 on was enjoyment of life low and failed to of onset chemical release to the was delivering she did plume of released Shell Chemical she the five minute premises materials to sites in expediter for Palla as 2 000 provider who related the to the facility jury for past and future was the time of the release the chemicals had traveled from the Vulcan where Ms 6 000 was The physical injury inconvenience and loss of of her healthcare The evidence showed that 10 000 A radio Interstate saw the a plume respirator that she of was canying as Chemical had over were on it did not and drove By the time premises passed plume safety equipment Ms the respirator evacuation had cover her head required About half to a wetness remove to that an materials for her deliveries sensations on her face and eyes and numbness in her Guarisco she her 2001 primary care began experiencing diagnosed May physician for she was refened Piper s condition as asthma those or as well coughing a of nausea as well physician s asthmatic bronchitis as the bUll1ing dianhea that and bronchitis assistant through pulmonary specialist In June 2001 who Dr Bee assessed Ms By November complained of increasing heartburn and postnasal drip again including A symptoms Bernadette Bee gastrointestinal complaints Ms medical treatment fi om Dr Michael Due to chronic to Dr signal alelied lips after the chemical release soon nose She washed her face and day despite feelings Piper sought her with bronchitis 2001 treated her Ms of chemicals walls of the warehouse fi om which work the remainder of the 20 the Shell only pinched the suffer from residual exposure clung to the on Chemicals from the dizzy hour later the all clear to April set up expired the plume continued On point her face and in her eyes because the respirator smell of chlorine and was an As she inhaled she felt Piper Piper recalled that she continued she to 2001 Ms Piper Dr Bee did not treat her after November 2001 Because of the continued associated with treating with a gastrointestinal symptoms gastric and esophageal gastroenterologist esophagitis gastritis and a reflux 3 August 2002 Ms those Piper began Dr Michael Ruth who found evidence of erosive small hiatal helnia vomiting initiated by the April in pmiicularly Be opined that the persistent 2001 chemical exposure could have exacerbated 5 Ms Piper s tendency hiatal helnia admitted his In asthma toward made or a gastric and esophageal reflux and either caused the preexisting theory that vomiting caused July 2003 Ms stable was Piper was In addition to pack a chronology a day smoker extraordinary amount of Because another the expert potential fact may reject Frederick denied erroneous in the medical So 2d 880 The diagnosed were examined a or 15 p La cause by was controversial Dr Guarisco Bee on a difficult time Although weekly preceded up the habit giving They also lemned that Ms Piper the basis and that she had April 3 gastrointestinal symptoms La App 3 17 00 of her her a Piper despite took an history of chemical exposure 2001 and mindful that pmi the testimony of any witness 756 1st Cir 9 24 99 So 2d 1141 apparently concluding that the April 882 the was 687 See Stobart v v writ manifestly not 3 2001 chemical release gastrointestinal complaints trier of Scoggins see 744 So 2d 676 jury a was was State not 617 La 1993 jury in for her in whole 99 3557 hiatal helnia But Dr Ruth larger testimony established that her analgesic consumption cause 98 1814 become complain of chronic chest and abdominal who had that or of her treatment the jury also heard that Ms analgesics gastrointestinal symptoms hurt gastrointestinal symptoms counseling sessions by Dr numerous a again she continued to discomfort shortness of breath and was a one one could have May exacerbated that the award of trier of fact could believed that the bronchitis with which 2001 and the asthma from which she suffers by the chemical 10 000 in assess exposure Considering this record general damages for the effects of the 6 were was Ms was conditions that we below that which pmiicular injuries she a cannot say reasonable Piper suffered result of her exposure as a general damages is rendered after the assessments s On were we appealed by jury to wanant 3 2001 The award of interdiction of the verdict detailed medical testimony including general damages totaling fright Mr Penton points and stress 6 000 was note any awarded for was past and enjoyment the jury s awards of past medical expenses to was an that neither the past party and therefore But Mr Penton relies jury 3 250 inconvenience and loss of 5 630 and future medical expenses of general damages The 12 500 disability and physical injury 427 11 to assert that the abuse of discretion nor are the future medical expense awards not heavily quantum of general damages s award for 2Mr awarded fear and 12 500 in appellate review the as weeks of to for past and future anguish appeal Initially so physical pain and suffering in the amount of award of was was for past and future of life low April Appeal2 3 250 future mental abusively on Piper s condition James Penton specified the chemical mixture listened jury of Ms James Penton not to scope of properly within the these awards in his on He contends challenge It appears that the past medical expenses included all incuned healthcare costs our as of jury s submitted Penton contends the trial comi ened when it permitted appellees to argue and introduce containment system by Vulcan to the chloromethane to avoid a future release of chemicals into the atmosphere about the installation of testimony production unit after April 3 2001 urging it is inadmissible evidence of subsequent a remedial effOlis under La C E mi 407 Aliicle 407 states in relevant part In a civil case when after an event measures m e taken which if taken previously would have made the event less likely to occur evidence of the subsequent is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the pmiies have stipulated to appellees liability Aliicle 407 is inapplicable measures event Since the Moreover we evidence of remedial evidence note the trial comi admonished the jury to draw subsequent measures were or remedial not relevm1t the references made warrant reversal of the measures jury s we in fashioning its no inferences from the testimonial awm ds Lastly cannot say that either the trial court by attorneys in awards of damages opening statements See La C E mis 402 7 was while s so 403 we agree the admission of such prejudicial as to by plaintiff except MRI Dr 1 Scrignar 1 187 00 and Dr Morris 10 737 Dr Rostow amounts portion of each charged by in For Dr There He Dr Peter amount Dr of saw Penton wan anted Dr Peters Mr Penton accepted and as an or a 897 expeli bronchitis questionable s continued symptoms suspected Dr Peters advised the undertake the recommended he allergy testing could have limited past medical expenses example the jury may have awarded less than the full on Mr as Penton five suffering from Dr test Dr William Erwin on months after to a pOliion of Erwin told the September physical 25 jury that 200 l An office examination the and lung findings complain Like Dr Peters charged the chemical release He chemical induced bronchitis that resulted in Mr Penton had but the November 1 2001 showed Mr Penton nonllal range to pulmonologist illness pulmonary function about jury 1 866 that bronchospastic continued by may have concluded that the amount of not to Mr Penton way of another diagnosed Mr nonnal submitted jury awarded bill Elwin first a jury was Penton did not Thus the s performed the as Mr Penton with rhinitis diagnosed Mr By provider charged evident whether the did not examine Mr Penton until five months after the chemical allergic component suggested Peters not gap in treatment of nearly two years at which time Dr Peters was a jury that to example Stanley otolaryngology exposure an each healthcare Healthsouth 773 00 Our review of the record shows that it is all the 6 050 00 s function test following month likewise revealed pointing a reason that Mr out that Mr twenty pounds ovelweight Dr Elwin suggested that it may be 8 abnormal lung function had improved When asked for of shOliness of breath pulmonary an a Penton Penton was result of a de conditioned body for which he recommended aerobic could have believed that conditioning Clearly the jury Penton had recovered from the M1 chemically induced bronchitis well before October 2003 when the pulmonologist discontinued and limited its award of past medical expenses Because we do have not an that Mr Penton is entitled to assume Mr as Penton by the evidence Insofar attempts on to the jury past medical expenses sums ailments and jury s basis for we necessarily reflect rejecting others Indeed 15 536 63 the amount Mr Penton claimed is to the cannot jury s anything supportable in the record as the jury s award of future qualitatively s 5 630 in suggests that the total implicit findings accepting specific within the range of O accordingly itemized breakdown of the concluding treatment award of detennine the 427 11 injuries Mr Penton again the jury concluded he suffered based He asselis It appears that the included healthcare medical expenses award for future medical jury s expenses submitted by plaintiff except Dr 7 800 00 Dr Rostow 1 700 00 Scrignar psychiatric medicines 3 914 28 1 600 00 and shortness of breath aerobic conditioning Subtracting these sums fi om 23 671 92 the total amount submitted by The jury awarded plaintiff results in a remainder of 11 657 64 11 427 00 Such an allocation suggests that the jury recognized and accepted plaintiffs claim for pennanent injury to his eyes and chronic injury to his sinuses which is consistent with the jury s award for past medical expenses costs as and awarded future medical expenses from those jmy apparently did not however accept plaintiffs claims for his psychological injuries and thus did not award future medical expenses for these areas of injury Footnote added footnote injmy areas The omitted 3 In fact Dr Erwin testified that aerobic Mr Penton would need to expenses of between participate 1 280 and conditioning twice a would cost about 40 per session and that amounting to total week for fom to six months 1 920 9 Mr Penton then notes that in this decision not to award sustained or aerobic Based on appeal he does challenge the jury s damages for either psychological injuries conditioning ostensible he may have he may need review of the record our not we do not agree that Mr Penton assumptions necessarily reveal the factual detenninations the jury made injuries he sustained or the medical expenses he his It is injuries psychotherapy Lexapro breath equally rendered 914 1 600 which would total 11 434 determinable either an we rendering with dry its eye as with the general damages circumscribed from agree with Mr merit in Mr Penton s jury 11 427 7 800 conditioning sessions 23 671 92 is Penton that the award limits our requested by presented the jury review to those For these general damages we was fi ee to Mr Pen As injuries associated award upon which it could base on relied upon in reasons turn not necessarily supported by the record medical expense awards and was 1 120 past medical expenses is injuries complaints assertions that the year of 20 weeks of shOliness of than the totals 0 to included one past medical expenses the jury and chronic sinus by the jury s of the evidence the Scrignar Because the basis for the ranging syndrome CB depression to treat award for amounts less cannot Dr of amount the result of as a the basis for the future medical expenses is not And Therefore any award such by psychiatrist and 14 weeks of aerobic conclusively established fashion plausible that the medicine used a therapy as may incur in the future on find no was somehow to summary now a we a general damages award Mr Penton Chemical across was the working street as a safety from Vulcan on 10 man April 3 s for Shaw Constluctors 2001 He was at Shell walking toward the orientation trailer he was to the exposed bmned He respirator was Mr unwrapped the to tend to duties associated with training chemicals He stmied bit clip string nose estimated that it took him between during which time the on ten respirator well About nine 2001 point after he being he resumed his duties remainder of the at day two that time dry punctual plugs as not the activate the sought medical eye a He respirator wearing protective to proceeded wearing cover clip nose their an evacuation respirators so he called his wife and advised her of his safety Mr person Penton worked the weeks after the chemical exposure Mr Penton who care fi syndrome procedure he He Dr Russell Saloom who prescribed perfonned Dr Saloom testified that continued complain on was Dr Andrew Kucharchuk In om ophthalmologist production to a He mouthpiece on was mouth bit a 4 he treated with Penton with were to he Although prevent his eyes from tearing At the evacuation and put and twenty seconds he could not breathe not that included that covered the plastic point and along the way noticed that others removed his for air and his sinuses and eyes carrying personal protection equipment Penton removed the glasses they did gasping employees when new eye drops in his office January about eye initation and 20 and 2004 dryness September diagnosed eventually which twenty Mr inselied assisted in tear although Penton M1 he indicated that it was not very bothersome anymore because he had become used to it Dr Saloom continued to treat Mr Penton 4 through February Mr Penton discontinued chemical release employment 2004 on the following day for reasons not related to the He testified that but for the tennination he would have returned to work the following day 11 Mr Penton treated with Dr Peters for sinus related Elwin for breathing problems cOlrunenced treatment with psychotherapy with of evaluative tests Scrignar opined and is continued an Dr exposure stmied healthcare The was suffering from psychiatrist indicated sensation psychiatric injuries were note dysfunction caused exposure his examination Penton sought care from which he suffered a that one He young man Although Dr who 3 that Penton more 2001 Thus the had endured as a jury that since he had out provided to to the fi om jury during numerous address a The and may have concluded that any dry eye syndrome jury dry dry pain was was eye claim that the presented with symptoms after the eye and syndrome suffering alleviated when he indicated to his doctor that it did not bother him 12 other result of the chemical exposure Saloom indicated that the result of the likely chemical pennanent condition by January 2004 Mr Penton apparently had lemned with it s improvement urologist experienced sinus Dr of the symptoms of opined treatment was a battery a generalized anxiety disorder a without the elaborate detail Mr began psychiatric histories by the April physicals for employment applications a in June 2003 which would account for Mr Mr Penton had made marked day trial that evidence of on Scrignar had an optimistic prognosis pointing providers including hospital and routine Based of shOliness of breath upon exertion additionally the twenty Scrignar review of his medical and breathing psychotherapy We erectile altered feelings than not the Dr that Mr Penton major depression anxiety a Mr Penton psychologist and cOlrunencing a psychiatrist and and with Dr In November 2001 detailed earlier as complaints was a to live Mr Penton by January 2004 By October 2003 his continued conditioned aerobic Mr Penton s pulmonologist of shortness of breath and complaints may have been the body Dr conditioning could For that cause Scrignar suggested shOli tenn aerobic Penton s on the record of the testimony Penton conditioning jury abused its person who whole numerous vast April on medical and healthcare 2001 awarding asselis the verdict establishes with certainty as a Ronnie whole specified for mental On find of either beyond jury providers who jury treated Mr general damages twenty seconds to a to the chemical did not believe that Mr treatment that the which listened to jury Although Mr Penton found he had specific greater general damages award considering the no error Vallery s Appeal Ronnie was we a a course warranted to alleviate Mr 12 500 in It appears the were pennanent conditions warranting anxiety complaints of shOliness cannot say that this Penton suffered residual effects that record was de of breath for between ten and 3 his Dr Elwin recOlmnended may have concluded that we discretion in exposed was mixture released as a that correlation between the a psychotherapy or persistent feelings of shortness Based the Thus the the basis for assess suggested disorder fiom which Mr Penton suffered and the continued of breath upon exeliion not Vallery 30 000 was was awarded general damages totaling for past and future disability and physical injury past and future physical pain and suffering and anguish fear appeal Mr and fright 100 000 40 000 for The jury 30 000 past and future stress inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of life Vallery contends the jury s general damage award 13 was abusively low considering well that he sustained April business 3 was en He facility 2001 syndrome which is in the pennanent condition a clouds of chemicals merge ground as truck had become into the truck jackknifed enveloped whether it would catch one on thought safety he was to run going a was ankle and was to the quite on the Vulcan frightened truck see After Vallery to to drink Feeling that a direction that feet until he could catch his wind to a period of time won the ying about He sat in the cab begun seeping not safe in the was As he follow him to see was he out came a was no longer in he assumed was Vulcan first aid station and his blood pressure was checked He eyes guarded check in gate 14 away from the He felt nauseated and someone released from the first aid station Mr through he because his hitting his knee toward his left in to pass out given something truck and drove longer the tluck door to exit complained of a runny nose and watering burning After he no stopped his and floorboard ditch and tried person advised Mr There he He became and explode approximately fifty to sixty He sat in trucking together fall downward and could Vallery Vallery opened twisting his Vallery began the cloud or through the cracks ran right a the Vulcan not premises Off to his of to delivery and two minutes when he noticed the chemicals had he missed the step He Mr in the cloud fire confines of the vehicle Mr Mr owner As he tried to back up his tluck and trailer to avoid emersion in the cloud the trailer for between that entered the Vulcan roadway two spread year old load of sand for when he heard two booms saw the Vallery the fifty four gate premises he on Mr route with his second was on guarded check a eye pennanent damage to his sinuses as On cloud dry Vallery went back As he backed up to to his dump his load a big ball of white foam wrong and returned to the first aid station Vallery was advised in Gonzales where April 12 2001 a Mr again experienced Mr to go to a Vallery returned of Vallery sought driven treatment from corrnnencing and redness a his knee and ankle Dr Fraiche turned Joseph Laughlin Dr concluded that Mr Vallery had sprain By December suffering fi om dry provided on April s Elizabeth were and Mr s Hospital administered Hospital after he had On once he over Mr mild a Dr Richard began Mr for continued 9 2001 scratchy throat Laughlin examined 2001 in eye place in his January to chest of continued complain care inner knee and sprain of his had healed and he pain in to Dr W 2001 Vallery in August Mr complaints tightness fatigue loss Vallery s orthopedic Vallery s condition 2004 Dr Saloom treated Mr a He high ankle was released eyes to alleviate Vallery s chemical punctual plugs into exposure Mr that the opined In Vallery s pain February Based dry on eye 2004 Vallery for continuous eyes and concluded that he Dr Saloom gave Mr syndrome to him Dr Saloom Vallery the history syndrome Dr Saloom some Mr was a was lubricating Vallery had result of Mr placed pennanent eyes Dr Saloom admitted that suffered from to St family practice physicians complaints of bmning ilTitation and redness of his to evaluated was s care COlmnencing drops was and bronchodilator St Elizabeth to appetite and headaches During May Laughlin was something ball of white foam in his mouth burning ilTitation from Dr The foam He hospital treatment breathing Streb and Dr John Fraiche of eye the He knew up into his mouth came uniquely identifies nothing a about the dry chemical exposure 15 eye as syndrome the Mr Vallery only possible cause He explained that dry was unable to rule eye out syndrome aging or also be caused can any other potential by age and conceded that he cause as a possible basis for Vallery s manifestation of the pennanent eye prior medical history complaint of redness before April had been indicated Dr Saloom noted included of scan nasal were sinus related believed that but Mr scan no with one blockage no In light Vallery taken in the May Because of Mr in we was complaints which Dr Peters noted that Mr that can exacerbated his He refelTed Mr sinus accompany sinusitis and concerned about the underlying a cause Vallery to neurologist of the chronic nature of the headaches Dr Dr Peters allergic component and recOlmnended allergy an option Comparing 2004 Dr Peters noted a improvement January 2004 CT in the sinuses and Vallery s continued complaints of sinus symptoms as of the date of trial Mr the entire record do not find that the general damages Vallery 3 2001 Vallery Dr had declined to procedure Considering above was did not pursue that Peters reconunended surgery but undergo Vallery s neurological basis for the headaches and concluded may have had they Mr Vallery began receiving Mr nose congestion which of headaches Maria Palmer who found testing 2003 address his continuous sinus showed sinus disease Dr Peters persistent complaints they April anatomical defects in his problems Although he had CT to in congestion postnasal drip and headaches had several Vallery Dr Fraiche fi om Dr Peters treatment reviewing by another healthcare provider Upon refelTal from medical a In problem Mr fifty to Mr jury patiicularlY the medical evidence abused its vast discretion in Vallery At the onset of the four years old and the jury 16 could have dry awarding eye outlined 100 000 syndrome reasonably inferred Mr that4 aging was a cause of the condition detennined that if Mr his chronic sinus wearing an a complaints would abate extended duration affirmed in was also within the Vallery underwent the sinus respirator at the time of his For these It we reasons find to have surgery Dr Peters recOlmnended Mindful that Mr Vallery was not exposure and that he remained in the cloud for no error in the the trial comi s compliance with jury s purview jury s award of judgment incorporating the jury s verdict La UReA Rule 2 16 1 B against plaintiffs appellants Shelia Piper 100 000 Appeal costs James Penton and Ronnie AFFIRMED 17 are is assessed Vallery

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.