Patricia Ricciuti alleged she was injured in an auto accident caused when defendant Stephen Pohlman crossed into her lane and struck the passenger side of Ricciuti’s vehicle.  When emergency personnel arrived on scene, Ricciuti reported pain in her neck and left side but had no visible injuries. She was subsequently taken to Allegheny General Hospital, where she underwent a battery of tests, including a neuropsychological exam. Following her discharge, Ricciuti claimed that she suffered from headaches and dizziness, as well as pain in her neck, back, and side. She treated with a chiropractor, neurologist and neurosurgeon and took over the counter pain medication.

She filed suit, and the case proceeded to trial on damages only as the defense conceded liability based on the clear facts of fault.  At trial, Ricciuti’s medical expert, neurologist Stephen Shymansky, testified that Ricciuti suffered a mild concussion in the accident. Notwithstanding this diagnosis, the jury returned a verdict of $0.

The trial court found that the verdict was “improper and incomplete” and ordered the jury to award a dollar amount for each item delineated on the verdict slip. In line with the court’s order, the jury awarded $1 for each past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment and humiliations, and loss of consortium, for a grand total of $5.

Appellants requested a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence as the verdict did not reflect the injuries and pain suffered. The trial court denied their motion and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. Relying on precedent, Judge Christine L. Donohue stated that “Our law provides that not every pain suffered is compensable and “[g]enerally, the determination of whether the pain is severe enough to be compensable is to be left to the jury.” Moreover, the court explained that the trial court’s decision to deny the Appellant’s motion must be upheld as long as there is any support in the record for its decision.

Here, Judge Donohue stated that the trial court concluded that the evidence of Ricciuti’s injuries were subjective because Ricciuti’s medical tests were negative. The Superior Court agreed and concluded that the “complained of injuries are supported only by Ms. Ricciuti’s subjective complaints.” Judge Donohue further noted that Ricciuti’s own medical expert testified that his diagnosis of a concussion was based solely on Ricciuti’s reports.

Thanks to Sheri Flannery for her contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information.