Ray F. Rando VS Anco Insulations, Inc., et al

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2007 CA 2093 RAYF RANDO VERSUS ANCO INSULATIONS INC ET AL Judgment Rendered Mav 2 Appealed Cf from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 538 254 Honorable Robert 1 Bums Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellee Ray F Rando Cameron R Waddell Jody E Anderman Baton Rouge Judge Ad Hoc LA and Renee M Melancon Lisa W Shirley Dallas TX Dan Edward West Attorneys for Arthur H Leith Defendant New Orleans LA Jacobs Constructors Inc Scott F Attorneys for Defendant 2nd Appellant Higgins Donovan J O Pry Lafayette LA II I st Appellant Parsons Infrastructure Technology Group BEFORE CARTER C J PETTIGREW AND WELCH JJ Inc 2008 WELCH J In this appeal defendants Parsons Infrastructure parsons and Jacobs Constructors Inc damages in favor of Ray Rando due challenge Inc judgment awarding a former employee who contracted mesothelioma We affirm asbestos exposure to a Jacobs Technology Group BACKGROUND For more and welder Mr at Rando than 20 years numerous was beginning in 1965 Mr Rando worked commercial and industrial sites diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma exposure to asbestos caused by lawsuit seeking damages as a On On November 22 result of his exposure to September defendants including his former employers various premises Rando allegedly exposed was to asbestos well as as 23 2005 cancer Rando filed this Mr asbestos pipe fitter and fatal a rare 2005 as a against owners numerous a host of where Mr companies that designed manufactured sold and installed asbestos containing products Two of the defendants and Jacobs Parsons contractors Rando worked in the 1970s filed motions for summary asserted that Mr Rando Louisiana Workers Rando filed s claim more s tort suit was Act Compensation against it was barred Jacobs completion which Mr Rando worked while in its for summary judgment and Parsons judgment additionally urged that La R S 9 2772 because it The trial employ court This declined jurisdiction observing that Parsons could address the issue v Mr was on denied the motions sought supervisory review of the denial of its judgment Rando they of construction of the immovable motion for summary the merits in which by the exclusivity provisions of the perempted pursuant to than 10 years after for whom Mr court Anco Insulations Inc 2007 0020 exercise to on La supervisory appeal after trial App 1st Cir 18 on 07 unpublished Prior to the trial Mr Rando released 2 numerous defendants from the The record reflects that litigation settled with the following defendants Beacon Insurance Tenneco and Insulations litigation Reilly employ bench trial the trial a Mr Rando for s tort claims Louisiana Workers to his exposure determination the 2 court ruled that 1 by the exclusivity provision of the not barred Act asbestos while in their to Mr Rando was significantly exposed through 1973 while working for Parsons and Jacobs and Mr Rando 3 pain and suffering mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life in the amount 2 800 000 00 Shell determined there The Tenneco court and applied The court then awarded general damages along with special damages in the including employers was evidence that eight amount entities of 402 000 00 were Parsons Jacobs and Lou Con Construction Murphy Oil and insulator the pre 1980 among joint tortfeasors into virile greater role in causing damages the determined that Parsons and Jacobs Rando court one McCarty to Mr of a and The Inc Anco contractors employers should have known of the dangers of asbestos materials at the time they employed for were to liability Compensation asbestos from 1970 both and Company only defendants remaining in the the court damages due In connection with the Rando One Parsons and Jacobs Following to Inc Eagle Inc Shell Oil owners USA At the conclusion of the trial were liable premises Co Benton Lou Con Inc employer alleged insurer of Virgil Carson and Bernie Murphy Oil Company Inc Corporation Mr the as the conclusion of the trial Mr Rando his former executive officers of Lou Con Lyons were Group LLC to prior eighth of the total amount virile share or equal of the award regardless was or tortfeasors premises owners Eagle and McCarty law under which fault is divided shares Judgment contractors joint The of whether then entered against 400 250 00 and one played Parsons for against Jacobs for same amount This appeal followed ill which Parsons and Jacobs 3 assert numerous to challenges the trial court initially answered the appeal damages with respect its brief to this to Mr Rando liability and quantum determinations s the trial to contest court virile share reduction of s but later withdrew the McCarthy assignment of error in court LIABILITY Tort Immunity Louisiana Revised Statutes exclusive entitled remedy for to a compensable injury diseases that or are under the workers compensable Parsons and Jacobs argue that mesothelioma 1 1031 1952 version of La RS 23 Mr Rando of the This not App 151 Cir 970 So 2d 534 this court was not employee s a employee is sets forth those compensation act compensable disease under the in effect at the suit is barred exposure 9 14 07 time they employed by exclusivity provision a was Dow v 10 13 held that the 1952 version of La as a covered disease Therefore action not Terrance 971 So 2d 1058 writ denied this under the workers tort in In Terrance 2006 2234 at pp disease compensable arising because of that exposure or court RS asbestos as the decline appellants request to correctly held that Mr Rando compensation law at provision of the Workers claims precluded were Compensation Act 4 the against the employer for damages Id In so doing this revisit Terrance and conclude that the trial s a held because arguments advanced by Parsons and Jacobs in this appeal rejected same squarely include mesothelioma covered substance that caused time of the tort 07 14 12 971 So 2d 1065 166 mesothelioma was an act 2006 2234 La La 23 1031 1 did s was a recently addressed the identical issue court Chemical Co 2007 2042 which and therefore Mr Rando compensation disease for which Louisiana Revised Statutes 23 1031 1 compensation occupational compensation the 23 1032 makes workers not barred court We court by the exclusive remedy Peremption At trial Jacobs moved for summary judgment Rando s claims against it Rando worked for H E were barred l Weise Inc on the issue of whether Mr La RS 9 2772 by Jacobs which at predecessor provided the time Mr a peremptive period of 10 years for actions involving deficiencies in design supervision constructions of improvements to immovables The 1964 version of La 9 2772 in effect at the time Mr Rando worked for Jacobs to damages could be brought against recover the design planning supervision inspection construction of registry in the an improvement occupied by the was recorded an control lessor proximate The early owner the tenant ofthe more ten years however or furnishing precluding otherwise the or than 10 years after the date of after the owner a or if no improvement has been RS 9 2772 person in of such parties do injury or damage sued upon not more dispute a than 10 years effect of La controlled the that the work construction of filing of this lawsuit in this than or an as originally possession improvement at or the deficiency from asserting the defense if the deficiency constituted cause peremptive more exception 1970s constituted and that immovable performing observation of construction Like its present version La owner enacted contained time of the or RS provided that no action mortgage office of acceptance of the work by the such acceptance as to any person or performed by Jacobs improvement to at S 5 Shell in the immovable property elapsed from the completion of the construction and Instead at they dispute whether the exception from the 9 2772 for those defendants who RS improvement an 1964 La Acts No 189 a the time the injury was proximately possessed caused or applies case Jacobs submits that the For the purpose of this Jacobs exception applies only appeal to those persons who have Weise and Jacobs will be 5 collectively referred to an as ownership the to leasehold interest in the immovable or legislature that of intended an owner to put lessor or a definite end other person to It insists that being constructed the exposure of a but not contractor having control of the property claims to arising out of a construction project We disagree with Jacobs Of the extinguished or possible action rather than the 2000 0636 Kennedy v constructions the one The 9 p its clear exception by by a in person lessor owner peremptive La strictly are tenant or or lessor owner defendants who or tenant were in possession or be that maintains enforcement of App 1st Cir 8 6 01 adopted 801 So 2d 476 precludes assertion of the peremption control otherwise Therefore to 799 So 2d 1138 terms possession one The and gives examples phrase encompasses persons involved in the construction of the statutes that bars enforcement should be 482 writ denied 2001 2499 La 10 12 01 defense peremption exception against peremption and in favor of the claim that is said construed Albach of the interpretation It is well settled that contained in La RS 9 2772 the claim narrow we construe or an the control of the otherwise such as an obviously improvement other than exception to improvement apply at to those the time the injury was caused On the control issue the record reflects that in 1970 time period during which major Jacobs construction an construct Carnahan a Mr Rando worked for Jacobs Jacobs project at Shell Oil engineering and construction chemical and 1971 s chemical company plant in and 1973 the was engaged in Norco Louisiana specializing in construction in refining industries contracted with Shell sometime around fractionation Jacobs personal knowledge plant at Shell s existing chemical facility engineering purchasing agent of the project general contracting practices Mr in question at that time also testified Carnahan attested that 6 a 1970 to Mr who had Gayle some regarding Jacobs typically the owner would was turn Jacobs the entire responsibility and construct project to Jacobs the Shell Mr procedure the keys to s refinery as a Shell upon necessary turn responsibility for the safety of workers Carnahan testified that called for at the site typically According to coordinated that Shell s s property points to B B B specifications Engineering Engineering of the at Supply was required plans and specifications for the unit in to not exercise the to Mr authority question facility the project requisite control over the construction bring its activities within the peremption exception at It trial demonstrated that Shell maintained control of the Rando over on s In support of this argument testimony in which he stated that Shell had the the methods construction and Jacobs also focuses on 7 of materials use asbestos and that he believed Shell controlled the work he the Shell all the documentation introduced project through its specifications and work practices ultimate the containing insulation would be used submits that the evidence Jacobs representative inspecting at high temperature insulation which contained asbestos and that Jacobs Jacobs argues it did Shell a job Jacobs Under the subcontract B acknowledged knew that asbestos on turn the installation materials in accordance with Shell s Carnahan performed by being performed was Company Louisiana Inc Mr including job Jacobs subcontracted the insulation work supply to Mr Carnahan attested that Jacobs product at to for construction hired start work trial was and it of the construction and Shell would Mr Carnahan could not recall if Shell also had subcontractors work contractor key project meaning that Jacobs would site Mr general knowledge the project in question followed this completion had the ultimate the time it the as Carnahan described the type of work up the unit and manufacture its superintendent the Jacobs provide the materials standard over to design fabricate and install the unit it To Mr Carnahan insulation at to over including performed for Jacobs the fact that Shell s at specifications called containing insulation for the use of asbestos on the project We find however that the evidence established that Jacobs had the ultimate control the construction over required Jacobs does to insulation containing asbestos over was on the Jacobs subcontracted project a we fact known the methods of installation conclude that Jacobs failed its burden to meet was The fact protect its workers from the dangers of asbestos exposure these circumstances peremption which Mr Rando worked relieve Jacobs from control not responsibility on for the installation work that ultimately responsible that Shell project or to its Under to prove under La R S 9 2772 Negligence To prove question to the harm was negligence 3 cert causation issue the evidence that he that he received Adams 9 23 05 519 v 1007 plaintiff in a multiple in fact if it is a asbestos exposed to was 122 causes of while in its case writ denied injury employ I finding that 2 are 3 must 673 So 2d 585 show by a 2005 2318 a On the preponderance of s conduct and exposure La See App 1st Cir 925 So 2d a cause harm d erred with respect exposure v 589 590 1996 1 3 0 06 La duty Pitre defendant s conduct is plaintiff s Mr Rando had finding p 4 a the risk of breached duty 2004 1589 present court finding that his development of the disease 4 asbestos from the defendant substantial factor generating by the substantially caused by that Parsons contends that the trial determination by 136 L Ed 2d 399 Corning Fiberglass Corp 923 So 2d 118 When an the conduct in requisite duty and afforded 509 I 2 the defendant owed 8 La 5 10 96 117 S Ct injury that an Owens was protection 95 1466 p University 519 U S denied resulting harm the defendant breached the within the scope of Louisiana Tech show four elements plaintiff must the cause in fact of the plaintiff was a significant was a to its negligence exposure to asbestos substantial factor in the that Parsons should have known that Mr 8 Rando asbestos risk for at was developing mesothelioma as 4 by applying an during its employ and Parsons failure present testimony of to contends that Mr Rando did also failed Rando to adverse or due to presumption Jacobs corporate representative a should have known a duty at to to him and the time of Mr employ that pipefitters could contract mesothelioma s and Jacobs causation and s result of his exposure demonstrate that it breached prove that Jacobs knew Parsons court not a reversed on review this appeal assignments of court may error the record findings Under the manifest only disturb the trial reasonably supported by essentially challenge the trial These factual knowledge rulings absent manifest error court s and the may not be standard of error rulings if the rulings findings are clearly State DOTD 617 So 2d 880 882 are not wrong or La 1993 manifestly erroneous Stobart Where permissible views of the evidence exist the fact finders choice between them two cannot be manifestly v erroneous or clearly wrong Stobart We first address the causation issues raised reflected that Mr Rando 1972 through December working on constructing entire time he as a I employed unit area to pipe fitter by Parsons from at Shell s chemical plant pipe covering near where he were visible in the air was the work Mr April was He stated that the was dusty and cut particles particles literally snowed constantly during the work day and during the entire time he worked for He testified that Parsons did not on Mr Rando testified that working area I of Rando attested that he breathed the dust from the insulation and that the insulation dangers trial insulate 100 foot vessels and other workers result of the insulation work insulation a at Mr Rando testified at that time Parsons 1972 a new as by Parsons The evidence performed his job for Parsons insulators sawed block insulation scaffolds above his work insulation and was 617 So 2d at 883 provide him with of asbestos and that Parsons took 9 on him Parsons any information about the no measures to separate him from the insulators or to reduce protect him from exposure or for Parsons and Mr Rando took any preventative that there acknowledged to measures reduce Mr asbestos to was no Rando Experts testifying evidence that Parsons risk of exposure s to asbestos To demonstrate that the insulation used on on the construction for Parsons contained asbestos Mr Rando offered evidence 1982 samples asbestos court taken by Shell containing insulation was on s on the construction abatement records expert showing that from 1985 through 1993 huge materials were removed that in 1972 asbestos Dr industrial hygiene abatement records the work he and opined commonly utilized epidemiology along testimony of of asbestos an containing high temperature insulation lines on the with Mr Rando s study as an expert in the field of of diseases was exposed to opined that the testimony regarding the description of for Parsons demonstrated that asbestos site and that Mr Rando also project The trial the through amounts who testified for Mr Rando performed that in by Shell from the VCM plant The evidence also showed was Richard Lemen showing the insulation in the VCM unit revealed that had been used with Shell presented he worked job asbestos while that the exposures Mr Rando described at working the used was job on the job for Parsons site He substantially increased his risk of developing mesothelioma With respect Jacobs as a Jacobs to pipefitter the evidence reflects that Mr Rando worked for in 1970 1971 and 1973 Mr Rando testified that he worked in the his employ with Jacobs be used insulation to insulation waste to breathed the dust workers on fall onto the at on the site and ground or onto resulting from the insulation cleaning the area never Shell s chemical vicinity of insulators He attested that vessels at these cut waste every Norco day during insulators insulation for scaffolds vacuumed the dust 10 jobs facility in cut block pipes causing Mr Rando stated that he falling to the ground making the work and that area even He stated that the insulation dust dusty more visible blew around the work and that he inhaled this dust throughout the work area Rando attested Jacobs never did to take any steps not being used on warned him of the control reasonably safe work place Rando employment s to well as to Jacobs breach its is not take steps contractors products duty on to 2003 0248 to provide Mr Rando with asbestos exposure as to on the fact that Mr regulations setting forth minimum the Rouge of the state or promulgated practices until 1971 of other Baton was employ in its pp 6 7 La denied 2004 1834 La 12 17 04 knowledge issue it dangers See Roberts App 1st Cir 4 2 as Rouge Rather whether Jacobs had duty issue should have known of the in practices However the fact that area was not art protect Mr Rando from asbestos exposure is dependent or a Jacobs also urges that Mr Rando in the Baton determinative of the the time Mr Rando On the the insulation to predicates this argument asbestos exposure the absence of evidence whether Jacobs knew Corp to safety standard contractors duty not demonstrate that it violated any standards effect before 1971 for federal of asbestos exposure and dangers reduce his exposure pre dated the first federal standards with respect failed or time Mr During this day the worksite Jacobs submits that it did a was v 04 of asbestos exposure Owens a on at Corning Fiberglas 878 So 2d 631 639 writ 888 So 2d 863 was established that in 1970 Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act and created OSHA the Occupational Safety and Health Administration In 1971 OSHA threshold limit with respect standard in it was July of known to asbestos exposure and an emergency temporary promulgated 1972 that remained in effect for the next four years long before this standard asbestos in the implemented workplace were at was risk for from such exposure 11 implemented that workers a permit However exposed to developing asbestos related diseases Dr Lemen Mr Rando by medical a study that asbestos could who inhaled it He testified would be on the replaced into subject that it lung was cause Parsons cause the dust as by methods such asbestosis and that there and should not an sweeping so that on actually acknowledged that six was were ways to prevent the disease cause established that asbestos was by was a great deal of confusion as early 1970s greater incidences than Pendergrass stated it community around the was the 1970s that Mr to containing regulations among the went the Pendergrass stressing that those studies asbestos years before the OSHA Rando would be employ in 1972 Dr Lemen handling opined in Parsons was known that workers who handled asbestos mesothelioma in dust no Surveying literature have known that Mr not there Pendergrass discounted the studies relied Mr area expert in industrial hygiene level of asbestos exposure in the it ventilation established in 1930 that asbestos excessive levels of asbestos while he persons of mesothelioma acceptable 1960s as was to Mr on hierarchy warning workers about the danger and According done a including vacuuming the work expert John Pendergrass that Parsons did on in the asbestos textile workers to and that between 1960 and 1964 it exposure could to R A Merewether established between 1935 and 1955 that asbestos inhalation could cancer exposed established death in humans or study the author developed well as the air by Dr E of workers lungs Lemen attested that it Dr inhalation could 1930 report was study concluded that asbestos fibers caused the wetting protect themselves how to disabling disease asbestos exposure controlling of workers segregation the In the 1930 disease asbestosis for on The manufacturing industry cause regarding a the effects of asbestos dust controls expert attested that by the 1930s it s products were He into effect in the products were general population getting However general understanding of the industrial hygiene onlookers 12 such as Mr Rando who worked along side workers developing was not asbestos related diseases opinion that this to the lack of scientific evidence based to working to asbestos Dr offered Lemen bystander for Parsons at standing the work site Dr Lemen testified that it a higher dosage of taken Dr as actually Rando employed by Jacobs and was workers handling asbestos He cited Dr exposure containing Merewether fibers could affect other trades journal entitled was Asbestos proper Therein the author stated greater along Parsons that a worker insulation faced s concern Thus a a for to determining that a actually Exposure and Neoplasia a particular variety such as his doing job near health risk from asbestos 1964 article published written in Dr by asbestos to a medical Irving building J trades of environmental exposure may Asbestos exposure in industry will not be limited not to respect job example insulation workers undoubtedly share their exposure with their workmates in other trades dating back or the time Mr at warning that exposure 1930 with known was particular craft that utilizes the material The floating fibers do classifications possible precautions Selikoff in which the author studied insulation workers in the even onlooker exposure than the worker Lemen testified it were not for was well He noted that settled asbestos dust could be reintroduced vacuuming was as handling asbestos containing atmosphere and become airborne again if into the known believe Mr not what level of asbestos Mr Rando another worker who is next to handling the materials the He admitted contradictory testimony regarding exposure to asbestos materials could receive be of that Mr Rando opined the fact that he did on his exposure as also Pendergrass risk for not at were to exposed worker Mr asbestos while was regarding statements s containing products asbestos significantly exposed however Rando handling the 1930s that it did the risk of Dr Lemen testified that it not matter what the worker danger from asbestos 13 exposure s rather was job title it was known that if the worker breathed in asbestos in could be at risk for developing an sufficient a asbestos related disease Additionally Dr Lemen testified that the uncontrolled dust encountered unreasonable by Mr danger of developing extremely significant concentrated in a Rando while large a an asbestos related disease amount see clouds of dust that the asbestos noting before it could at actually be the worksite would have particles seen five times the initial minimum standard forth set promulgated in 1971 He added that the medical community has to determine which a Lemen safe level a worker would ultimately opined reasonably safe Rando not s be at risk for of four as asbestos to they did despite not originally as never been able the disease mesothelioma employers s be to that level of exposure below or developing that Mr Rando work area to exposure of asbestos exposure was He estimated that OSHA by an to Dr According probably contain asbestos particles in a concentration cloud of dust would to exposure to asbestos working for Parsons and Jacobs presented Rando could the fact that Mr Lemen the worker amount did take any steps the fact that basic not provide control to or Dr him with a reduce Mr prevention methods had been known since 1930 In risk for the contracting mesothelioma while in their employ the trial testimony of Dr exposed to asbestos contributed to environment accepted exposures over and Jacobs should have known that Mr Rando finding that Parsons those work sites in at Mr Rando presented Dr Lemen The trial that offered all of the trial Furthermore in Lemen s an s disease was s and in Mr clearly within by the defense court finding that the Rando 14 exposures accepted was in fact significantly Rando s work Rando the trial court testimony regarding such to Mr s Mr at its discretion to accept this testimony Considering factual determinations Mr Rando fmding that unreasonable risk of harm testimony and court finding that court was the record leading to as a whole we find that its ultimate conclusion that Parsons and Jacobs were record and therefore may in this negligent not be disturbed reasonably supported by case are by this COurt 2 Parsons next submits that the trial court erred in shares three executive officers of Tenneco to Rando settled with additionally allocate unreasonably wrong fault or assign virile premises defendants Mr the conclusion of the trial and urges that the virile between eleven tortfeasors asbestos exposure s of the to failing The Tenneco for the role that company to liability with Mr Rando to apportioned shares should be virile share prior one the and find the trial Tenneco among manifestly we s court played court executive s did assign in connection decision officers not to was not erroneous QUANTUM In their final court damage award s award of of assignments special damage excessive while Jacobs argues that the trial expenses is not vested in the trier of fact is should rarely disturb Corp 623 So 2d 1257 379 entering 1994 beyond 2d Ed that which particular injury the 2 with to appellate court In entering In view of respect representative to were award for future medical our a an award of 1993 It is cert so Youn that an court Maritime Overseas v denied 510 U S only when the award is assess appellate 1114 114 S Ct in either direction for the effects of the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances that may increase or reduce a general damage general damage award the trial court award d stressed that before his that the record supports the trial court s negligence determinations we need not address Parsons argument regarding the corporate ruling Parsons vast reasonable trier of fact could the the even general damages La award the discretion general damage a and great 1261 127 L s general damage 400 250 00 award of court the trial supported by the record It is well settled that in 1059 contest Parsons submits that the Specifically 2 800 000 00 and the Parsons and Jacobs error issues raised in its brief IS diagnosis cancer leading a Mr Rando in was good health enjoying retirement and very active and full life with his Mr Rando has to painful medical rely others on to care and five treatments for him has which will pain treatments effects The court observed that surgical procedures only worsen Mr Rando received and will continue to receive caused The court noted that since his and chest factual basis for supported by s the record Lastly we that the 449 342 subtracting that abuse of the trial we amount at We find trial no to attempted to merit to Jacobs physician 14 150 00 Dr to the special damage award Jacobs from the actual amount 60 000 00 nearly objected on court Roggli taking into who Rando Mr to amount of awarded leaves Jacobs contends that treating physician or the future medical expense award was s the basis that Dr accepted by the projected future Roggli however found that Dr regarding projected future medical experience disturb the award of asbestos associated disease pathology The trial not challenge Roggli testify regarding Jacobs attorney discretion in vast s establish his future medical expenses Mr Rando called Dr Victor L in the field of court Rando did not call his speculative because Mr oncologist nausea may challenge award of future medical expenses of this award is side setting the damage award is amply did prove past medical expenses in the plaintiff 28 and no award and consider Jacobs numerous pain muscle pain headaches and vision loss We find entering the general damage chemotherapy Mr Rando suffered from diagnosis pain stabbing back notes the medication and time over The trial court nerve an and has endured energy no diagnosis only has the disease caused Mr Rando tremendous physical and emotional not an However since the family was arrived account at a expenses court as an When Dr not Mr Roggli was of average future a cancer Rando qualified s treating to testify patient given his monthly medical chemotherapy testing procedures 16 Roggli treatment cancer was expert expense of necessary to monitor the progress of the disease oncologist attested that Mr Rando treatments Dr and Roggli procedures at medications was weekly visits receiving the time of the trial Dr had almost reached the two year while life and an all of these medical Roggli noted that expectancy of to Mr Rando mesothelioma most patients Dr qualified Roggli to offer medical expert a an Mr Rando regarding opmlOn Roggli based his opinion in part expenses Dr procedures Mr Rando had since the in the future asbestos related diseases m We find the trial abundantly supported by the cancer court record and s we on diagnosis clearly was projected future medical the medical treatments and s and would continue to future medical expense award therefore decline to need to be disturb the award CONCLUSION For the this appeal Group foregoing are reasons assessed 50 Inc and 50 to the judgment to appellant appellant Jacobs appealed from is affirmed Parsons Infrastructure Constructors Inc AFFIRMED 17 Costs of Technology