(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury/car accident case and its proceedings.)
Here, Defendant has failed to establish by any means how the “sub rosa” videotape contradicts or somehow discredits the testimony of any of Plaintiffs experts based on any legal criteria. Defendants have not explained if or how these experts failed to rely on personal observation, personal knowledge, or an assumption of facts finding support in the evidence. As is obvious, the “sub rosa” video was not the only evidence available to the jury, nor can an assumption be made that Plaintiffs experts opinions would have been altered in any way based on a video depicting activities Ms. Lee’s own family testified. that she on occasion was able to participated in and/or perform.
Further, Defendant’s reliance on two family law cases, related to asset value disputes is markedly distinguishable from a civil matter wherein medical experts base their opinions on examination of a Plaintiff and provide an opinion based on their background, expertise and experience, as was the case here. Further, Defendants have relied on court opinions regarding expert valuations of tangible assets, which is markedly divergent from the valuation of a person’s future needs of a medical nature, as explained.
The Evidence Presented in the Trial Constitutes Significant Evidence
During the course of this trial, there was significant evidence with regard to the brain injury, and other physical injuries, suffered by Ella Lee. Every medical expert, Plaintiff or Defense, agreed that she did indeed suffer a brain injury. Further, the testimony of Plaintiffs experts and Defendant’s experts as to the extent of Ms. Lee’s injuries was not identical, but that is surely to be expected. The mere fact that there was contradicting expert opinion evidence does not diminish the solid value of the evidence presented.
Further, Plaintiffs provided significant evidence not only by way of expert opinion, but also through testimony of Ms. Lee’s family that was consistent with what was seen on the sub rosa videotape. There was no significant contradiction as Defendant suggests that would be sufficient to support a granting of a JNOV. Instead, Plaintiff did put on substantial evidence in support of Ms. Lee’s injuries and the verdict in this case, even from Defendant’s experts, who also confirmed that she had a brain injury and multiple physical injuries as a result of this collision. Thus, this Court should deny Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests this court deny Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.