Dixon v. Malone & Hyde, Inc. ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-60788
Summary Calendar
WILLIE DIXON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MALONE & HYDE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(1:94CV168-JAD)
May 17, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After a jury trial, the U.S. District Court entered a judgment
in favor of plaintiff, Willie Dixon, in the amount of $158.42.
Dixon now appeals the district court's denial of his pre-trial
motion to designate an expert witness out-of-time. In addition,
Dixon appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a new
trial on damages. Finding no error, we affirm.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
I.
The district court set December 1, 1994 as the deadline for
Dixon to designate his expert witnesses. On January 26, 1995,
Dixon moved for enlargement of time to permit him to designate Dr.
John McFadden as an expert witness. The district court denied
Dixon's motion, noting that Dixon had not given any reason for his
failure to designate Dr. McFadden within the time allotted.
Dr. McFadden's identity and the necessity for his testimony
has been known to Dixon since the beginning of this lawsuit. See
Lee v. Knutson, 112 F.R.D. 105, 106 (N.D. Miss. 1986). Despite
that fact, Dixon did not explain his failure to comply with the
discovery deadline. Id. at 106-07. Under those circumstances,
that Malone & Hyde, Inc. would have allegedly suffered no prejudice
as a result does not persuade us that the district court abused its
discretion.
II.
Dixon also appeals the district court's denial of a new trial
on damages. Dixon suffered a cut to his nose when a large door
broke loose and hit him on the head. The hospital charged $158.42
to stitch the cut and provide a precautionary tetanus shot. Months
after the accident, Dixon visited Dr. McDonald, complaining of
headaches and neck pain. Dr. McDonald examined Dixon and found no
serious condition requiring additional tests or treatment.
Moreover, Dr. McDonald testified that the accident had not caused
those conditions. A year after the accident, Dixon went to Dr.
2
McFadden, who treated Dixon for his neck pain. Dixon incurred over
$5,000 in medical expenses for treatment related to his neck pain
and headaches. He claims on appeal that the jury's award, which
failed to compensate him for these additional medical expenses, was
grossly inadequate.
We will not disturb the jury's award of damages "unless an
award is so 'inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience and to
raise an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, corruption
or other improper cause invaded the trial.'" Taylor v. Green, 868
F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Garrick v. City and County
of Denver, 652 F.2d 969, 972 (10th Cir. 1981)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Based on Dr. McDonald's testimony, the jury could
reasonably find that Dixon's headaches and neck pain were not
caused by Malone & Hyde, Inc. Regarding Dixon's injury to his
nose, the record supports the jury's award of only $158 in damages.
Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Dixon's motion for a new trial on damages. See id.
(affirming denial of new trial where "the jury's failure to award
compensatory damages does not lack 'factual support in the
record'").
AFFIRMED.
3