Pain and Suffering Damages

A plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical pain and mental suffering that accompany or otherwise result from physical injury. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1972) 7 Cal.3d 889, 893.) These injuries constitute the principal elements of tort personal injury damage, and an award failing to compensate an injured plaintiff where pain and suffering was present is inadequate as a matter of law. (Id.)

Pain and suffering is a unitary concept, encompassing all the physical discomfort and emotional trauma occasioned by an injury. (Id.) A plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for all physical pain suffered and also for all resulting “fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, apprehension, terror or ordeal.” (Id.; Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 981.)

The absence of medical bills or medical testimony will not foreclose a recovery for pain and suffering. (Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 413.) Indeed, even in the absence of any explicit evidence showing pain, the jury may infer pain, if the injury is such that the jury in its common experience knows it is normally accompanied by pain. (Id.)

There is no standard for determining general damages. (Civ. Code of Proc., § 3359.) In fact, “no expert may supply a formula for computing the value of life and, by extrapolation, the value of the loss of enjoyment of life. That calculation, at present, must be left to the sound discretion of the jury.” (Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 768.)

“Pain and suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any scale, and their translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of the trier of the facts.” (Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 [quoting Walker v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 269].) “Translating pain and anguish into dollars can, at best, be only an arbitrary allowance, and not a process of measurement, and consequently the judge can, in his instructions, give the jury no standard to go by; he can only tell them to allow such amount as in their discretion they may consider reasonable.... The chief reliance for reaching reasonable results in attempting to value suffering in terms of money must be the restraint and common sense of the jury.” (Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 757, 764.) The only guideline is “a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense.” (Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 103; Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1332.)

Useful Rulings on Pain and Suffering Damages

Recent Rulings on Pain and Suffering Damages

JACQUELINE PEREZ VS MARIA ANGELICA CANEDO

Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1332: “Noneconomic damages compensate an injured plaintiff for nonpecuniary injuries, including pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is a unitary concept that encompasses physical pain and various forms of mental anguish and emotional distress. [Citation.] Such injuries are subjective, and the determination of the amount of damages by the trier of fact is equally subjective. [Citation.’ There is no fixed standard to determine the amount of noneconomic damages.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YVONNE BARRO VS JOHN EIKER ET AL

“A judgment, just as a settlement, may be insufficient to reimburse the employer and compensate the employee for pain and suffering or¿other damages not fully covered by workers' compensation. Yet, after the payment of attorney fees and other costs, the employer is entitled to reimbursement from the entire amount of the judgment. (California Insurance Guarantee Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.¿(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 358, 368 [citing Gapusan, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 741].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RANDALL VS. MANOR ON THE VINE, LLC

Defendant YG, however, has provided evidence that Plaintiff has claimed damages of $16,025.19 in past medical expenses, $75,000 in future medical expenses, along with $1MM in non-economic damages for pain and suffering. (Clements Dec., ¶ 9, Exs. 7-8.)

  • Hearing

STEVEN OPPENHEIMER, ET AL. VS MARIA LUISA ACOSTA

The motion to strike claims for damages for “past, present, and future loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, as well as . . . physical pain and suffering . . . .” is DENIED. The court cannot conclude as a matter of law based on the allegations in the pleadings that such elements of damages would be impossible to prove. The motion to strike the claim for prejudgment interest in the prayer on page 11, paragraph 3 is GRANTED. (Curtis v. State of California ex rel.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WARLIN V. SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

For the first two counts, Plaintiffs’ alleged harm is mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering, as well as severe or extreme emotional distress. As to count two, Plaintiffs also allege that they incurred, and will continue to incur, medical related expenses in an amount according to proof. For count three, Plaintiffs’ alleged harm is severe emotional distress and mental suffering.

  • Hearing

SHILIN JIANG VS DAZHI CHEN

Plaintiff alleges, that as a result, he suffered physical injuries, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress to be proven at trial. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Defendant argues that this cause of action arises out of protected speech because it concerned communications to the police.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

SHEILA POWELL VS BEHAVIOR SUPPORT SOLUTIONS

· Non-economic damages: Plaintiff testified that she has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, and pain and suffering damages in an amount of $10,000. Further proof is required or the court may require an oral prove-up hearing. Plaintiff has offered no documentary evidence relating to any damages she suffered to corroborate her claimed non-economic damages (e.g., invoices from therapists or doctors, etc.). Plaintiff improperly totals her “economic damages” at $56,640.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CAIN V. MENDONSA

should be awarded; decedent is entitled to pre-death pain and suffering damages; and plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney fees..

  • Hearing

MARK FERREIRO, ET AL. V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

“[T]he patient-litigant exception has been applied, typically, to personal injury cases in which the plaintiff tenders his physical or emotional condition as an issue by seeking damages for what he contends are physical or emotional injuries.” (Simek v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 169, 174.) VICKIE does not limit her claim to the common pain and suffering any person would be expected to feel when conscious of personal physical harm, as the plaintiff in Davis did.

  • Hearing

CHRISTENSEN VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

In this case, it appears that Plaintiff (who was self-represented) did not understand whether she was required to include an estimate of compensation for all future medical care, lost earnings, and general damages for pain and suffering. This is evident because the claim references future physical therapy, an inability to work, and trauma and pain.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PAUL ROBINSON VS SURFACE MODIFICATION SYSTEMS ET AL

“As a direct and proximate cause of action or inaction by Defendants, and each of them, and their actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, loss of sleep, and extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress; he has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment by psychotherapists and other health professions, and for other incidental expenses; and he has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits and

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTENSEN VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

In this case, it appears that Plaintiff (who was self-represented) did not understand whether she was required to include an estimate of compensation for all future medical care, lost earnings, and general damages for pain and suffering. This is evident because the claim references future physical therapy, an inability to work, and trauma and pain.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTENSEN VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

In this case, it appears that Plaintiff (who was self-represented) did not understand whether she was required to include an estimate of compensation for all future medical care, lost earnings, and general damages for pain and suffering. This is evident because the claim references future physical therapy, an inability to work, and trauma and pain.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEANETTE A BISNO, ET AL. VS DR. RENATO CALABRIA, MD, ET AL.

The failure to diagnose and treat the granulomas added to the complications and poor results suffered by Jeanette Bisno, who now faces the decision to have subsequent corrective and diagnostic surgeries which will cause additional expense and pain and suffering as well; B. the failure of Dr. Calabria and 90210 Surgery obtain proper informed consent harmed Jeanette A. Bisno because she went forward with a surgery thinking it would help her appearance when Dr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

PAUL ROBINSON VS SURFACE MODIFICATION SYSTEMS ET AL

As indicated above, Plaintiff also alleges diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of sleep, and future medical expenses. The interrogatories at issue are limited in time and scope, and are relevant to the discerning the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED based on the fact that Plaintiff’s privacy rights are implicated. Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections to Defendant’s Reply and Notice of Lodging are OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAVIER FUENTES GONZALEZ VS DREAM DWELL, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

· No statement of damages: Plaintiff seeks emotional pain and suffering damages, but there was no statement of damages filed. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.11). · Insufficient Evidence: Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, files a declaration attesting to the damages that he is entitled to under various Labor Code sections.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ESTATE OF CESAR RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.

Defendant also moves to strike various allegations which Defendant claims a re irrelevant or legal conclusions, and moves to strike Plaintiff’s demand for compensatory damages for “pre-death pain and suffering damages” because such damages are not recoverable in this matter.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JACQUELINE CASARES ET AL VS WE ARE FAMILY TRANSPORTATION INC

The Court must view the evidence submitted in determining whether a particular amount of general damages would compensate for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other non-quantifiable damages that flow from quantifiable damages. (See Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 881, 892.) Plaintiff has submitted evidence of sustaining $7,347.00 in special damages from being dislodged from her seat in a moving vehicle driven by Defendants driver.

  • Hearing

VAHIK AMERIAN VS GRIGOR SARKISSIAN D D S ET AL

Pursuant to this recommendation, Plaintiff visited Aslanian’s office, received substandard dental treatments, experienced pain and suffering due to the substandard work, and was forced to retain another dentist to remediate the damage. Plaintiff later learned that Aslanian is not licensed to practice dentistry in California. Demurrer Sarkissian and GGS APC (collectively, Sarkissian Defendants) demur to each of the Complaint’s causes of action. A.

  • Hearing

BERNARDO ARTEAGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO DECEDENT, DANIEL ARTEAGA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The claim alleges that the damages suffered are those incurred by the Decedent: “bodily injury, brain injury, unnecessary pain and suffering, inmate died twice, once in jail and again in the hospital days later. Civil rights violation.” (Kelly Decl. Ex. A.) Nowhere does the government claim indicate that damages are being sought by the Decedent’s heirs for pecuniary loss resulting from the Decedent’s injuries.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendant Lin argues that a rough estimate of the value of the case would take into account the severity of plaintiff’s claimed injuries, and submits Statements of Damages served by plaintiffs, in which plaintiff Lehr claims damages in excess of $91 million, including $15 million in future medical treatment and $75 million in non-economic damages, including $60 million in pain and suffering. [Collinson Decl., para. 7, Ex. 3].

  • Hearing

DAT THANH NGUYEN VS THANH-NHAN NGUYEN

Defendant argues plaintiff in the complaint is claiming that defendant’s acts have caused plaintiff “severe anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life and severe emotional distress,” and that, “Plaintiff was hurt and injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body and shock and injury to his nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused and continue to cause said Plaintiff great mental physical and nervous pain and suffering.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

YADIRA A TORRES VS MICAH SIERRA WILLIAMS

Plaintiff should be prepared to present evidence supporting her claims for lost earnings, other economic damages, pain and suffering/emotional distress damages, and punitive damages.

  • Hearing

VELIA GONZALEZ WILLARD ET AL VS BEVERLY HOSPITAL ET AL

Plaintiff alleges as a proximate result of Kaiser Defendants’ negligence and carelessness, Plaintiff was permanently injured and as a result of these injuries has had and will have future pain and suffering in addition to having incurred expenses. (Complaint ¶¶5-6.) Plaintiff alleges Kaiser Defendants concealed their own negligence and told Plaintiff her physical disabilities were due to causes other than their own negligence. (Complaint ¶7.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

BENNIE ROBINSON VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

As discussed, Plaintiff’s claims are couched in emotional distress that rises above normal mental pain and suffering associated with employment claims. Thus, the examination is facially relevant to the issue of mental suffering. Plaintiff does not contest that good cause exists for the exam generally, but only challenges specific tests.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 33     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.