Pain and Suffering Damages in California

What Are 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 § 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.)

Rulings for Pain and Suffering Damages in California

Page 4, lines 14-15: “and pain and suffering to them oppression justifies granting of punitive damages in addition to damages for pain and suffering”; 5. Page 5, line 16: “damages for pain and suffering”; and 6. Page 5, line 20: “damages for pain and suffering”. Defendant argues that plaintiffs seek damages in the SAC that are not recoverable and which were stricken in the FAC.

  • Name

    NINA ALLISON ET AL VS DR ROBERT DAR-TEH LIOU ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC644870

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2017

Pain and Suffering A plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical pain and mental suffering that accompany or otherwise result from physical injury. 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. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1972) 7 Cal.3d 889, 893.)

  • Name

    BRYANT HOWARD V. JENNIFER BOHN

  • Case No.

    17CECG00330

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

  • Judge

    Rosie McGuire

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, at paragraph 19, that Plaintiff has suffered "great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering ... and ... that said injuries will result in some permanent disability, all to (Plaintiff's) general damages."

  • Name

    ORTIZ VS LEE

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00021659-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2017

Moreover, Plaintiff does not provide any competent evidence to prove up any of his damages, including his past medical expenses, future medical expenses, lost wages, and future lost wages. Moreover, there is no evidence to support his request for $2,763,368 in damages for pain and suffering. ((See Duarte v. Zachariah (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1652, 1664-1665 [the standard for determining compensation for pain and suffering is based on what a reasonable person would estimate as fair compensation].)

  • Name

    JAMES COOK VS STEVEN YORK

  • Case No.

    19STCV10512

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

Accordingly, the motion to strike is GRANTED as to FAC, page 2, line 18: “great and mental suffering and pain”; page 2, line 19: “suffered great pain and suffering”; page 2, line 25: “pain and suffering”; page 3, line 14: “said practices caused her great pain and suffering prior to her death”; page 3, line 17: “damages for pain and suffering”; and page 3, line 18: “damages for pain and suffering”. Punitive Damages Finally, defendant seeks to strike all references to punitive damages.

  • Name

    NINA ALLISON ET AL VS DR ROBERT DAR-TEH LIOU ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC644870

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2017

Plaintiff’s pain and suffering are at issue. The Court cannot value Plaintiff’s pain and suffering, which, even if limited at five months, would necessitate their translation into money damages, a function for the factfinder. (Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 262.; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.)

  • Name

    LISA J BROWN VS EDMOND AREVALO ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC657140

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

In order to recover damages for pain and suffering, plaintiff needs to provide more detailed description of the pain and suffering experienced at the time of the shooting, resulting from the surgeries, and continuing to this day.

  • Name

    EDWARD GAMA VS. DAKOTA HILL

  • Case No.

    17CECG01160

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Accordingly, Plaintiff provides sufficient medical records to award $17,185.94 in special damages for past medical expenses, and based upon the limited records failing to substantiate the claim for pain and suffering , the Court will reduce the request for general damages from $250,000 to $ 40 ,000 for past pain and suffering .¿ ¿ Plaintiff also seeks costs in the amount of $ 1,375.97 for filing fees, process servers fees, legal research, skip trace for service on Defendants, and medical and billing

  • Name

    ANDREA J. KREPS VS MIGUEL A. LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV13621

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant argues that allegations regarding Plaintiff Blume's request for pain and suffering damages should be stricken. The court agrees.

  • Name

    FRANCISCO CHAVEZ VS. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00028353-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

At least for purposes of this motion, plaintiff and Moving Defendants agree that the total amount of special damages claimed by plaintiff is $4,973.04. Moving Defendants make no argument as to the amount of general pain and suffering damages, and in particular provide no argument why the amount of pain and suffering damages, together with the special damages, could not possibly exceed $25,000.

  • Name

    VERONICA ORTEGA VS RAMON TAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    1343391

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2011

The proper procedure for testing the adequacy of a claim for damages. See e.g., Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64. Pain and Suffering: Defendants move to strike the request for pain and suffering damages related to Plaintiff-in-Intervention’s Third Cause of Action (the Survivor Action). Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs-in-Intervention cannot recover for Decedent’s pain and suffering.

  • Name

    LEWIS, ET AL. VS. MAGNOLIA HOLDING,LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0197057

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The proper procedure for testing the adequacy of a claim for damages. See e.g., Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64. Pain and Suffering: Defendants move to strike the request for pain and suffering damages related to Plaintiff-in-Intervention’s Third Cause of Action (the Survivor Action). Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs-in-Intervention cannot recover for Decedent’s pain and suffering.

  • Name

    LEWIS, ET AL. VS. MAGNOLIA HOLDING,LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0197057

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The proper procedure for testing the adequacy of a claim for damages. See e.g., Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64. Pain and Suffering: Defendants move to strike the request for pain and suffering damages related to Plaintiff-in-Intervention’s Third Cause of Action (the Survivor Action). Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs-in-Intervention cannot recover for Decedent’s pain and suffering.

  • Name

    LEWIS, ET AL. VS. MAGNOLIA HOLDING,LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0197057

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The proper procedure for testing the adequacy of a claim for damages. See e.g., Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64. Pain and Suffering: Defendants move to strike the request for pain and suffering damages related to Plaintiff-in-Intervention’s Third Cause of Action (the Survivor Action). Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs-in-Intervention cannot recover for Decedent’s pain and suffering.

  • Name

    LEWIS, ET AL. VS. MAGNOLIA HOLDING,LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0197057

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The proper procedure for testing the adequacy of a claim for damages. See e.g., Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64. Pain and Suffering: Defendants move to strike the request for pain and suffering damages related to Plaintiff-in-Intervention’s Third Cause of Action (the Survivor Action). Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs-in-Intervention cannot recover for Decedent’s pain and suffering.

  • Name

    LEWIS, ET AL. VS. MAGNOLIA HOLDING,LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0197057

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The proper procedure for testing the adequacy of a claim for damages. See e.g., Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64. Pain and Suffering: Defendants move to strike the request for pain and suffering damages related to Plaintiff-in-Intervention’s Third Cause of Action (the Survivor Action). Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs-in-Intervention cannot recover for Decedent’s pain and suffering.

  • Name

    LEWIS, ET AL. VS. MAGNOLIA HOLDING,LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVCV21-0197057

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

(b) [the damages recoverable may include damages for pain and suffering if the action was granted a preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 36.].) Consequently, unless plaintiff is able to show that he is able to recover damages for pain and suffering, his statement of damages may need to be adjusted.

  • Name

    SAVERIO CHIMIENTI, III VS. DANIEL BATES

  • Case No.

    19CECG02879

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Particularly, Plaintiff has failed to brief the standard for pain and suffering damages, the factors courts consider in awarding pain and suffering damages, and/or Plaintiff’s evidence of pain and suffering (e.g., doctor’s visits, etc.). Further, Plaintiff fails to brief the standard for punitive damages, the factors courts consider (defendant’s conduct, actual harm, wealth of defendant, etc.) and actual factual evidence to support a $1,000,000 punitive damages claim.

  • Name

    QUANRUI CHEN VS JOHN BRADFORD FLECKE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC720024

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

Here, Defendants primarily argue this matter should be reclassified because Plaintiff’s medical specials to date are $8,574.00, which includes $2,681 paid by Plaintiff’s insurer; however, Plaintiff is also seeking damages for pain and suffering. The court cannot find as a matter of law, that the case will necessarily result in a verdict below $25,000, as the court cannot value Plaintiff’s pain and suffering.

  • Name

    CRYSTOL ESPINOZA VS ANNA TARAKCHYAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV03743

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

’s physical injuries and “garden variety pain and suffering;” and (4) Plaintiffs are not calling Dr.

  • Name

    MARCO CHAVIRA, ET AL. VS ALEXANDER MENDEZ, M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV36828

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

Plaintiff seeks $45,000 in general damages for pain and suffering against Babaie . Plaintiff has waived all costs. The Court previously denied Plaintiffs request because Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that he suffered general damages. On this request for default judgment, Plaintiff now submits three photographs of his ear in support of pain and suffering. However, t he photographs demonstrate a superficial and barely visible injury .

  • Name

    AUGUSTIN RAMOS VS MOZAFAR BABAIE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV00970

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs seek damages in the total amount of $5,652,380.02, broken down as follows: Amada - $2 million for pain and suffering; Angelo - $2 million for pain and suffering, $37,010 in special damages, $32,000 in restitution, $435 filing fees; and Ancheta - $146,935.02 in special damages, $1,500,000 for pain and suffering.

  • Name

    ANGELO UDIONG , ET AL. VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV19446

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

They also note that it is difficult to award an amount of pain and suffering damages and emotional distress damages. Defendant, in reply, argues the claimed need for future medical treatment is not adequately supported, and also that claimed pain and suffering/emotional distress is not sufficient to show the possibility of an award in excess of $25,000.

  • Name

    IKE OKONKWO ET AL VS COZYMELS COASTAL MEXICAN GRILL

  • Case No.

    BC583800

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

Maldonado specifically addresses this issue as it relates to claims of pain and suffering, explaining that the trial court is not permitted to determine the merits of claims for pain and suffering specifically, as this would deprive the plaintiff of his right to a jury trial on those issues. ( Maldonado , supra, 45 Cal.App.4 th at 401.) d.

  • Name

    STEPHEN BURHANS VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV40409

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Given plaintiff’s assertion of $500,000 in pain and suffering and $250,000 of emotional distress damages, a verdict within the unlimited court’s jurisdiction is possible. No definite standard or formula is prescribed by law to fix reasonable pain and suffering compensation.

  • Name

    ROUSCH VS. ALATORRE

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00881114-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2017

Plaintiff seeks $125,000 in damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering. However, Plaintiff’s declaration submitted with the present motion contains only objective descriptions of the premises and the many defects that Defendant failed to repair. However, it provides no evidentiary basis for a finding as to Rivera’s subjective emotional distress or pain and suffering. Plaintiff may submit a declaration corroborating her claim for damages.

  • Name

    CYNTHIA RIVERA VS BALUBHAI PATEL ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC604268

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2017

Additionally, the Court cannot enter a default judgment in the amount requested because Plaintiffs declaration is devoid of any testimony supporting an award for future economic damages. Furthermore, Plaintiffs request for a general damages award of $4 million is unsubstantiated by his conclusory statements of pain and suffering and emotional distress.

  • Name

    WILLIAM FREELAND VS SUSAN GLORIA VIGIL

  • Case No.

    23AHCV00573

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The amount of general damages awarded is usually correlated to the special damages proved. (Jones v. Interstate Recovery Serv. (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 925, 928.) Damages may be recovered for pain and suffering resulting from harm other than bodily injury. (Warren v.

  • Name

    EDWARD GAMA VS. DAKOTA HILL

  • Case No.

    17CECG01160

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

John Strona & Sons (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 705) The court will order a new trial on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering and past emotional distress only. The Motion is denied as to the other grounds raised.

  • Name

    MATTHEW CHARVAT VS. SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00002360-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

Defendants seek partial JNOVs on the jury’s awards for future medical expenses ($10,000) and future noneconomic damages ($665,000). With respect to future noneconomic damages (pain and suffering): One of the most difficult tasks imposed upon a jury in deciding a case involving personal injuries is to determine the amount of money the plaintiff is to be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering.

  • Name

    HERNAN OSORIO VS WESLEY T WILLIAMS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC597023

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

General Damages pain and suffering, emotional distress $30,944.46 Special Damages - medical expenses and future medical expenses $10,314.82 Punitive Damages $1,000 Costs $1,551.34 Total $43,810.62 _____________________________________________ Facts : Plaintiff Jordan Robusto sued Defendant Zhi Xin Gao and Defendant Spa Ritz

  • Name

    JORDAN A ROBUSTO VS SPA RITZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC696657

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2023

Past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering are simply listed as $500,000 each with no indication of how counsel reached those figures.

  • Name

    JARVIS SHELBY VS MARY GOODIE ET AL

  • Case No.

    1371126

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2012

App. 4th 931, in which the Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge’s denial of a new trial motion for inadequacy of damages, where the jury awarded nothing to plaintiff for pain and suffering.

  • Name

    VALENTINO BUTTARAZZI VS RODNEY MEDINILLA

  • Case No.

    1381340

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

In summary, judgment shall enter in plaintiff’s favor in the amounts of $9,508.64 for past and future medical expense, $150,000 for pain and suffering, and $150,000 for emotional distress. TENTATIVE RULING # 3: JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR IN THE AMOUNTS OF $9,508.64 FOR PAST AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSE, $150,000 FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING, AND $150,000 FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V.

  • Name

    MATTER OF GARVIN-SCHWAGERUS

  • Case No.

    PC-20180570

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

Plaintiffs Maria Guadalupe Magana and Javier Magana’s complaint for damages arising out of a fatal truck-on-bicycle accident includes requests for recovery of punitive damages, decedent’s pain and suffering, and funeral expenses. As to punitive damages, the complaint does not allege any factual allegations to support a showing of malice, oppression, or fraud as required by Civil Code section 3294.

  • Name

    MAGANA, ET AL. V. SUSTAITA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    VCU 271415

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

Defendant contends general damages are “not at issue.” Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that (a) she has a pain and suffering claim, and (b) her loss of income claim is for $8000, not $2500; she contends the foregoing could render the value of this case in excess of $25,000.

  • Name

    BRIANNA CARBAJAL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC599938

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2017

.”; (2) page 5, line 1 – “mental pain and suffering and”; (3) page 5, lines 5-6 - “He has also incurred mental pain and suffering.”; (4) page 6, line 11 – “mental pain and suffering”; (5) page 8, line 1 – “mental pain and suffering,”; (6) page 11, lines 20-21 – “mental pain and suffering,”; (7) page 14, line 15 – “mental pain and suffering,”; and (8) page 17, line 14 – “mental pain and suffering,”.

  • Name

    WENDY A. BURGO VS. DIAMOND RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01021038-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

Ancheta has provided no documents in support of any lingering or permanent injuries , whether it be physical or mental, to support his claim for pain and suffering. In the amended declaration, Ancheta must provide at some supporting evidence of pain and suffering after the incident for the Court to be able to assess the demand for general damages , and whether it is supported and reasonable.

  • Name

    ANGELO UDIONG , ET AL. VS TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV19446

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff seeks $25,000.00 for pain and suffering and another $25,000.00 for emotional distress – a form of pain and suffering. However, Plaintiff’s claims do not support such noneconomic damages. The 1st – 2nd, and 5th causes of action do not allow recovery of noneconomic damages. The 3rd cause of action is defective because Defendant owes Plaintiff no duty outside the traditional lender-borrower context. (Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1093-1096.)

  • Name

    ELOISA VARELA VS PNC MORTGAGE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    KC068140

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2017

Pain and Suffering A plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical pain and mental suffering that company or otherwise result from physical injury. 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. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1972) 7 Cal.3d 889, 893.)

  • Name

    LAZARO RUEDA V. JULIO ORDONEZ

  • Case No.

    15CECG01616

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2016

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff would need to be awarded almost 29 times her medical expenses as pain and suffering to recover more than $25,000. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing the amount of medical damages are not indicative of the amount of non-economic damages that can be awarded. Further, Plaintiff contends that in a similar case where a child fell and broke a finger in a restaurant, the plaintiff in that matter was awarded $25,000 alone for pain and suffering. (Opp.

  • Name

    LILIANNA DIAZ, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, DAVID DIAZ VS GINGERBREAD COURT L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV29790

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

As a general rule, jury determinations as to the amount of damages necessary to compensate a plaintiff for pain and suffering are afforded considerable deference, and such awards are usually only found to be inadequate where either (a) no pain and suffering damages were awarded at all; or (b) the award was so small as to appear to constitute a token award. (See, e.g., Dodson v. J. Pacific, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 931, 935-939.)

  • Name

    KRISTIN HARRIS VS. VICTOR MANUEL OLIVA

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00458980-CU-PA-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2017

The request for general damages (i.e., pain/suffering) in the amount of $20,000 does not exceed the limit requested in the Statement of Damages, but plaintiff must still establish, at the prove-up hearing, a nexus between the amount of actual damages and the amount of non-economic damages requested. Plaintiff presents nothing regarding his claimed pain and suffering damages other than a vague statement that he continues to suffer pain to his neck, back and leg.

  • Name

    PEREZ V. LAGUNA

  • Case No.

    17CECG00681

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2018

The court denies Defendant Huntington Beach Propane, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages and “Pain and Suffering” allegations from Plaintiff Mark Sacchetti’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff asks for punitive damages in the wrongful termination claim. (FAC, ¶ 43.) Punitive damages may be recovered for a Tameny claim. But, such damages are only recoverable upon a showing of malice, fraud or oppression. (CACI no. 2433; Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1101.)

  • Name

    SACCHETTI V. HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPANE, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00935988-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2018

Here, Plaintiff adequately alleges that she incurred pain and suffering damages as a result of being wrongfully evicted from the Subject Property. The arguments raised by Defendants are inappropriately decided at this stage in the litigation. Defendants’ motion is denied.

  • Name

    SANDRA KIM BALE VS THERESA M. BALE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18NWCV00072

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

However, Defendant has not shown that, when Plaintiff’s pain and suffering damages are added to her economic damages, the amount in controversy necessarily will fall below the unlimited civil jurisdictional limit. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s pain and suffering damages will be commensurate with Plaintiff’s economic damages, so they should not (in its view) bring her total recoverable damages to $25,000. That is not the test.

  • Name

    TAVAKOLI VS. GARCIA

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00870901-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

In deciding whether a matter should be transferred a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact (e.g., 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). (Walker, supra; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.) In this case, future medical damages and pain and suffering are at issue.

  • Name

    SOVY BANKS VS BURKE WILLIAMS INC

  • Case No.

    BC627362

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2017

Pacific, Inc. supra at 938) Having exercised its independent judgment, the Court is convinced that the amount of damages is inadequate. The jury clearly should have reached a different verdict. The Court finds that the reasonable amount of damages for pain and suffering is $15,000. The jury found plaintiff was 40 per cent responsible for his injuries. Therefore the amount payable for non-economic damages is $9000.

  • Name

    JONATHAN COLEMAN VS. HENRY LEE JENNINGS

  • Case No.

    34-2008-00005073-CU-PA-GDS

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2009

Plaintiffs acknowledge his pain and suffering is no longer an issue but argue that a witness may happen to mention that William Phipps was in pain. Plaintiffs do not identify any element of their case as to which William Phipps pain and suffering is relevant. Testimony about his pain and suffering is irrelevant to the jurys decision in this case and would be unduly prejudicial as it could encourage the jury to increase a damages award based on his pain and suffering.

  • Name

    LINDA PHIPPS, ET AL. VS COPELAND CORPORATION LLC

  • Case No.

    20STCV38250

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The plaintiff sought several million dollars in economic and non-economic damages for past and future economic and no0n-economic damages. The jury award only a total of $28,000, broken down as $12,500 for past economic damages, $6,000 for past pain and suffering, future economic damages of $10,000, and $0 for future pain and suffering. Plaintiff argues that the award of no future non-economic damages was inadequate and inconsistent with the finding of future economic damages. [Motion at 3-4.]

  • Name

    ETAN MILLER VS JOLANTA WALTER

  • Case No.

    BC595555

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2018

  • Judge

    H. Chester Horn

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

.”]; Dodson, 154 Cal.App.4th at 938 [“A plaintiff who is subjected to a serious surgical procedure must necessarily have endured at least some pain and suffering in connection with the surgery. While the extent of the plaintiff’s pain and suffering is for the jury to decide, common experience tells us it cannot be zero.”]

  • Name

    GARY MESROPIAN ET AL VS MICHELLE RENEE BLACK ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC644731

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2018

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

However, Defendant has not accounted for possible general damages for pain and suffering to both Plaintiffs. Assuming a conservative general damage award for pain and suffering for Mr. Boatright of $12,000 and $8,000 for Plaintiff Henson, both Plaintiffs’ general damages total $20,000. Including the medical specials of roughly $10,000 for both Plaintiffs, the total damage award exceeds the $25,000 jurisdictional amount.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    BX667898

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2018

Despite the fact that the declaration is not admissible, pain and suffering and future medical expenses are at issue. While Plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of these contentions, this does not foreclose her from seeking to recover those damages. Most importantly, the Court cannot value Plaintiff’s pain and suffering, which he contends is ongoing. This Court cannot find, as a matter of law, that the case will necessarily result in a verdict below $25,000.

  • Name

    BRODY CURTIS VS LEEDS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC664631

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

These two cases stand for the proposition that an award of damages that does not include recovery for pain and suffering is not necessarily inadequate as a matter of law, but rather "depends upon the facts involved." (Miller, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 558.) As the court stated in Miller, in failing to award damages for pain and suffering, the jury "'may well have believed that plaintiffs' injuries . . .

  • Name

    MARK POYADUE VS. RICHARD REYNOLDS

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00113723-CU-PA-GDS

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2013

While there is no standard for determining general damages, “reasonableness” is the only limit on the amount of pain and suffering damages. (Civil Code §3359; Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 757, 764-68.) Plaintiff’s representations support a reasonable finding of pain and suffering as a result of the injury. In reply, Defendant argues that the non-economic damages must be proportional to the economic damages sustained.

  • Name

    ALEXANDRA KAO VS BLUE PLATE OYSTERETTE RESTAURANT

  • Case No.

    BC657964

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2018

Corporate Defendant Plaintiff requested $500,000.00 in emotional distress and an additional $250,000.00 in pain and suffering. (Chesnutt Declaration, ¶ 8.) There are three problems with this request. First, pain and suffering is emotional distress; these are not separate distinct categories.

  • Name

    DESIREE CHESNUTT VS ICE STORM MARKETING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV34578

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

These remedies include attorney's fees and costs, and punitive damages. It also allows survivors to recover pain and suffering damages in cases of intentional and reckless abuse where the elder has died. Mack v. Soung (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 966, 972. In general, a decedent may not recover damages for pain and suffering. CCP § 377.34. Here, the decedent has alleged he suffered personal injury, emotional distress and death, i.e. pain and suffering. (¶ 25).

  • Name

    ATKINSON VS THE ENSIGN GROUP INC

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00464234-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2015

Defendant moves for partial JNOV seeking to set aside the portion of the jury's verdict awarding Plaintiff $75,000 for future pain and suffering and for entry of judgment awarding Plaintiff $35,951.58 in past economic damages and $25,000 for past non-economic loss as reflected in the verdict.

  • Name

    WARREN PETERSON VS. LORENA IVONNE HERNANDEZ

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00103756-CU-PA-GDS

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2013

The damages instructions are to be revised to specify that Taylor is seeking damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and emotional distress, but not for lost profits, increased cost of operations, or loss of earning capacity. The damages instructions for the entity plaintiffs should not include lost profits, increased costs of operations, loss of earnings from speaking engagements, loss of earning capacity, and pain and suffering and emotional distress.

  • Name

    NYAS WORLD LLC ET AL VS HRG TAX GROUP INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC710814

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

In deciding whether a matter should be transferred a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact (e.g., 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). (Walker, supra; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.) In this case, pain and suffering and scarring are at issue.

  • Name

    JEAN WILLIAMS VS WAL-MART STORES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC626133

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2016

In deciding whether a matter should be transferred a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact (e.g., 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). (Walker, supra; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.) In this case, pain and suffering and punitive damages are at issue.

  • Name

    FRANCISCO PACO FUENTES VS EDUARDO YANEZ

  • Case No.

    BC680646

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

damages," Defendants' "failure prolonged DECEDENT's pain and suffering . . . causing DECEDENT to incur expenses she would not have otherwise incurred," and "Decedent suffered devastating injuries and harm."

  • Name

    ROMERO VS EDEN MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    HG19009731

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

Home Depot also produced Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages. In that Statement, Plaintiff estimates her pain and suffering to be $600,000 and her medical expenses to be $40,065.94. This evidence is admissible, but it is not proof of any actual damages. Plaintiff’s likely prove- able damages are her medical expenses. The amount any reasonable person would award Plaintiff for her pain and suffering damages is not at all certain, and $600,000 is speculative.

  • Name

    GOLIAN VS BEHNIA

  • Case No.

    MSC16-01161

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2017

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.

  • Name

    YADIRA A TORRES VS MICAH SIERRA WILLIAMS

  • Case No.

    BC654982

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

The request for default judgment submitted on November 20, 2023 is DENIED for the following reason s : Although Plaintiff cured some of the previously identified defects in the last denial, including obtaining new defaults, Plaintiff still has not submitted any evidence in support of the request for general damages of $4,985,000 from Zuniganorberto and $15,000 from Resendizaguilar for pain and suffering .

  • Name

    HENG ZHAO VS GILIBERTO ZUNIGANORBERTO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49024

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thus, the "filing of a personal injury action seeking damages for pain and suffering does not, ipso facto, place mental condition in issue as part of the claim." Ibid. However, where "directly relevant to the issues of pain and suffering associated with the physical injuries [plaintiff] sustained," the records may be discoverable. Id. at 1017.

  • Name

    ANGELA JENKINS VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC20582905

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

The jury awarded Plaintiff her medical costs ($2,363.51) but denied any damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiff seeks a new trial on the issue of damages or an additur of $3,000.00 representing the reasonable amount recoverable for pain and suffering. Plaintiff brings her motion under CCP 657 on the basis that Plaintiff’s evidence showed she suffered non-economic damages and no evidence to the contrary was presented.

  • Name

    SKIFF V. MAVIS

  • Case No.

    VCU 271886

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

Corporate Defendant Plaintiff requested $500,000.00 in emotional distress and an additional $250,000.00 in pain and suffering. (Chesnutt Declaration, ¶ 8.) There are three problems with this request. First, pain and suffering is emotional distress; these are not separate distinct categories.

  • Name

    DESIREE CHESNUTT VS ICE STORM MARKETING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV34578

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In deciding whether a matter should be transferred a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact (e.g., 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). (Walker, supra; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.) In this case, pain and suffering and property damage are at issue.

  • Case No.

    BC64399

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2017

Petitioner’s request for grandparent visitation is therefore denied without prejudice to a future 4 request in an appropriate proceeding. 5 4) This Court also knows of no authority to award Petitioner pain and suffering damages in an action 6 brought under the Domestic Violence Protection Act and Family Code section 6342(b) specifically 7 forbids this Court from awarding this type of damages.

  • Case No.

    FDV-23-816748

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2023

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

"General" damages consist of intangible losses naturally flowing from an injury which are not computable by reference to bills or receipts. Most typically, general damages compensate for pain and suffering and consequential emotional distress. Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1586, 1599. Defendant contends Plaintiff's damages are in the amount of $3,295. Defendant claims this amount is the totality of Plaintiff's damages and Plaintiff has not alleged any "pain and suffering" or emotional distress.

  • Name

    ROBERT ZIMMERMAN VS AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA INC

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00032627-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2017

Defendants argue this case should be reclassified because Alexis claims damages of $2,945 and Kelly claims damages of $7,126.12. Defendants refer to Plaintiff’s discovery responses and document production in support of the claim that recovery in excess of $25,000 is virtually unattainable. However, Defendants only tally up Plaintiff’s economic damages and medical special damages. They do not address the fact that each Plaintiff also seeks general non-economic damages for pain and suffering.

  • Name

    AVERY SMITH VS EL PUENTE AUTO CARE & MUFFLER CENTER, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV00482

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

While the court makes no factual determinations at this time, Plaintiff’s contentions show that special damages for pain and suffering and future non-economic harm could exceed $25,000 on their own. Further, the cause of action for fraud could impose punitive damages against Defendants.

  • Name

    LEAH WOOLFOLK VS UNITY E MEDICAL CLINIC INC

  • Case No.

    BC721015

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2019

The amount of special damages that conforms to proof is $5,695.70. Further, Plaintiffs seek general damages for pain and suffering and future medical expenses in the amount of $70,174.20, which is six times the amount of alleged special damages.

  • Name

    MARIA CONTRERAS ET AL VS BROADWAY MEDICAL SUPPLY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC479856

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2017

Ohern’s responses to Form Interrogatories 6.1-6.7 do not indicate that she is seeking damages for pain and suffering that go beyond a general claim for pain and suffering. The claimed injuries are mostly physical with neurological effect. (See Zadoorian Decl., Ex. B., Responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.1-6.2.) There is no evidence that Ohern treated with any psychologist or psychiatrist as a result of the accident. (See Response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.3.)

  • Name

    SAVANAH E BURSON ET AL VS JENNIFER GRAY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC696435

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

Defendant contends Plaintiffs have not mentioned loss of earning, general damages, or punitive damages in discovery. Defendant therefore contends the case is necessarily valued at less than the jurisdictional minimum, such that reclassifying it as a limited jurisdiction case is proper at this time. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing they are making claims for pain and suffering, which is on-going. They contend a reasonable jury could award her damages in excess of $25,000.

  • Name

    MARIA HERNANDEZ, JR., ET AL. VS WAN SUNG CHAI

  • Case No.

    18STCV05277

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ special damages are less than $10,000, and Plaintiffs’ condition is stationary such that no further treatment is necessary, and Plaintiffs are seeking no future medical damages. Minimal lost earnings damages are claimed, and no future lost income damages are at issue. Pain and suffering is claimed, but Defendant contends the pain and suffering at issue is minimal.

  • Name

    JAMEELAH GINN ET AL VS JOSEPH SCOTT BROWN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC571710

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

While the documentation supports the Case Summarys requests for $13,631.50 in past medical expenses and $6,500 in future medical expenses, the documentation does not support the request for $41,631.50 in special damages in the CIV-100 form. In addition, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to justify separate awards of $150,000 for pain and suffering and for emotional distress.

  • Name

    MONTGOMERY ISRAEL VS CHARLES WILLIAMS

  • Case No.

    21STCV38856

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that (a) she has ongoing pain and suffering from the accident, including neurological symptoms; (b) her special damages are in excess of the jurisdictional limit; and (c) the motion is not timely. She contends a reasonable jury could award her damages in excess of $25,000. Defendant, in reply, argues Plaintiff’s claimed special damages are not supported, general damages are insufficient, and the motion is timely.

  • Name

    MARIA VICTORIA WHITFIELD VS MARC SEAN LAPSLEY SR ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC688913

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

Plaintiff requests an aggregate amount of $ 2,096,340.85 , which is comprised of $ 95,681 in special damages for past medical expenses , $ 2,00 0,000 in general damages, and $659.85 in costs . Plaintiff provides no evidence substantiating his medical specials , such as providing authenticated medical bills and medical records . Plaintiff claims pain and suffering in the amount of $2 million.

  • Name

    DEFU ZHANG VS CAO XIANBAO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV38542

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

D.E. cites Davis, arguing she did not waive her §1014 privilege merely by seeking damages for pain and suffering. Davis is distinguishable; there the court rejected defendants argument that plaintiff put their mental state at issue merely by filing a personal injury claim seeking general damages related to pain and suffering. D.E., unlike plaintiff Davis, seeks specific damages for emotional distress, and humiliation.

  • Name

    D. E., AN INDIVIDUAL VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY; AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE

  • Case No.

    19STCV36319

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff seeks to recover the $3,868.00 that he paid out-of-pocket for his treatment, as well as other special and general damages. (Morales Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 1.) Plaintiff seeks $5,000.00 for future chiropractic treatments and $150,000.00 in general damages for pain and suffering, including neck pain, shoulder pain, back pain and knee pain which Plaintiff alleges has greatly affected his enjoyment of life and enjoyment of daily bicycle riding. (Morales Decl., ¶ 7.)

  • Name

    JOSE MORALES VS WILLIAM CHINN

  • Case No.

    BC617423

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2018

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "DECEDENT was harmed and suffered pain and suffering," "Decedent sustained injuries and death," "DECEDENT was harmed and suffered damages in a sum according to proof at trial," and Defendants' "failure prolonged DECEDENT's pain and suffering . . . causing DECEDENT to incur expenses she would not have otherwise incurred." (TAC ¶¶ 93, 95, 115, 128, 135.) Damages for wrongful death causes of action do not include "any pain or suffering of [decedent]." (Allen v.

  • Name

    ROMERO VS EDEN MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    HG19009731

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

Further, plaintiff seeks a new trial on (additure) the inadequate damages against Marasign particularly for pain and suffering. The evidence of paid medical bills was $2,050.00 but the jury awarded $1,800.00 as economic damages. As for non-economic damages, the jury awarded a “shameful” sum of $1,750.00 for past pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering.

  • Name

    ROBERT RIEDE VS FRANK AGUILING ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC536926

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In an exemplary damages attachment, Murray alleges: Defendants “acted in a real reprehensible manner and with a wicked heart in that they callously, willfully and intentionally allowed [the dog] to roam and prey upon persons” and defendants “received a perverse and sick pleasure from the pain and suffering” of others. Defendants “callously, wickedly and with a wicked heart” allowed the dog to bit members of the public “for no reason other than to cause such persons pain and suffering.”

  • Name

    ROBERT MURRAY VS MARIA DEJESUS

  • Case No.

    1403235

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2012

The Statement of Damages provides Plaintiff seeks $250,000 for pain and suffering, and $250,000 for emotional distress. The amount sought cannot exceed the amount pled in the operative complaint/cross-complaint or set forth in the statement of damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580(a); Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1018.) Therefore, Plaintiffs general damages against Defendants are capped at $500,000.

  • Name

    SUZETTE GONZALEZ VS GUSTAVO GOMEZ GARCIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV17917

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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. (Walker, 53 Cal.3d at 269; see also Singer v. Superior Court 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 [finding trial court abused its discretion in ordering case transfer to municipal court because plaintiff sought damages for pain and suffering – claims which were not subject to precise pretrial measurement].)

  • Name

    ARACELI SICKLER VS ISLAND PACIFIC SUPERMARKETS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC713723

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

Unlike the initial complaint filed in Quiroz, which unambiguously alleged only the survivor’s pain and suffering, the complaint here contained allegations that CRESTWOOD’s conduct “caused Plaintiff to suffer all damages recoverable under the Elder Abuse Act, including, without limitation, economic damages, general damages, including pain, suffering, and emotional distress, punitive damages, treble damages and attorney fees, and costs of suit” [Complaint, ¶24].

  • Name

    HERNANDEZ V. CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS044246

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

However, that case is unavailing to P because it stands for the proposition that where the jury finds that a plaintiff underwent serious medical procedures due to a defendants negligence, then some attendant pain and suffering must have occurred and therefore the jury cannot award zero damages for pain and suffering. Id. at 936-938. Dodson does not stand for the proposition, as P urges, that merely finding that a D caused some harm to P must result in an award of non-economic damages above zero.

  • Name

    WILBERT LOPEZ VS EVELYN ELIZALDE-GANTES

  • Case No.

    18STCV05226

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Pain and Suffering/Emotional Distress (Fourth COA) Plaintiffs allege that they have “suffered a tremendous emotional and psychological trauma resulting in anxiety, insomnia, grief, loss of enjoyment of life and have incurred unnecessary expenses related to the cervices for their loved one.” (Compl., ¶ 46.) Plaintiffs’ cause of action fails. First, “ pain and suffering” is not an independent cause of action. Rather, it is a form of damages.

  • Name

    VLADIMIR LEVIN, ET AL. VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV25306

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2021

Instead, each plaintiff submits a declaration detailing their request for damages. Therefore, as stated in the declarations filed on May 14, 2021, Taragano seeks $3,515 for past medical expenses, $3,000 for future medical expenses, and $100,000 for pain and suffering. Similarly, Backstrom claims $2,920 in past medical expenses, $3,000 in future medical expenses, and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

  • Name

    ADAM TARAGANO, ET AL. VS HAYK GEVORGYAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV43183

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Further, her responses to interrogatories indicate that she is alleging physical and emotional pain and suffering. She also alleges injury to her body in the complaint and prays for general damages. California Civil Jury Instructions 14.13 on general damages states: “No definite standard [or method of calculation] is prescribed by law by which to fix reasonable compensation for pain and suffering.” Further, “Compensatory damages may be awarded for bodily harm without proof of pecuniary loss. . . .

  • Name

    LUZ M PEREZ VS RICARDO ANTONIO BARBOSA

  • Case No.

    BC675748

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

Further, in terms of general damages for pain and suffering, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence of lingering injuries to support $1,150,000 in damages. Facts and circumstances that establish reliable indicia of pain and suffering include evidence such as numerous visits to medical provider(s), a declaration from a treating physician, evidence of problems adjusting to injuries, permanent disfiguration or permanency of injury, disabilities, and so forth.

  • Name

    ROZA ZADORIAN VS INDIA SWEETS & SPICES CHAI & CAFE, LLC

  • Case No.

    22STCV02453

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Also as in Davis, “the materials sought must be directly relevant to the issue of pain and suffering associated with the physical injuries petitioner sustained.” Id. at 1017. In this case, plaintiff has expressly limited her claims to “‘regular’ pain and suffering” and “was not pursuing any claim for aggravation/exacerbation” or “depression- type claim.” (Fenton Declaration in Support of Motion to Quash, ¶ 5; Fenton Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Compel, ¶ 9.)

  • Name

    MICHELLE DUCKETT VS PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE CO.

  • Case No.

    1341945

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2010

Case Number: 19STCV23577 Hearing Date: May 5, 2021 Dept: 28 Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the amount of $56,620 ($50,000 in general damages [pain, suffering, and inconvenience], $6,100 in special damages [medical expenses to date], and $520 in costs [filing fee and service fee].) Plaintiff’s default judgment applications are deficient: (1) Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence of her pain and suffering.

  • Name

    SONYA FLORES VS GT RIDE LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV23577

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Reino suggests that the Court consider additur and award future medical expense ($100,000), surgery ($154,300), past pain and suffering ($14,895), and future pain and suffering ($12,846). But I cannot make such conclusions based upon my independent assessment of the evidence; I cannot conclude that the jury clearly should have reached a different result [emphasis added] (see Fortman v Hemco, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241).

  • Name

    NANCY ROMERO ET AL VS SMART OFFICE INTERIORS ET AL

  • Case No.

    1373215

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2012

Defendant fails to take into account Plaintiff’s potential future medical damages (since Plaintiff recently received a re-evaluation) and general damages for pain and suffering, which Plaintiff continues to experience. As such, it is possible for Plaintiff to obtain a verdict of over $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269; Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 277.) Defendant to give notice.

  • Name

    BROWN VS CRISHON

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01044012

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

STRIKE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES RELATING TO PAIN AND SUFFERING. (302/AJR/AA)

  • Name

    CHUI MING CHU VS. GEE POY KUO ASSOCIATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC02406190

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2002

In this case, the declarations submitted are inconsistent with the damages sought in the proposed judgment. In his most recent declaration, plaintiff Guerrero requests damages for loss of earnings in the amount of $3,200, and pain and suffering in the amount of $50,000. (See Guerrero Decl., filed October 19, 2021, ¶ 7.)

  • Name

    LILIANA RODRIGUEZ VS GILBERT FLORES

  • Case No.

    18CECG00619

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2021

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

· 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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV23986

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope