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

176-200 of 745 results

SUSANA ROSAK ET AL VS PROVIDENCE LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY MEDI

The Whipple procedure caused and/or contributed to injury to the patient, including to severe pain and suffering, emotional distress, chronic kidney diseases, diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, hyperkalemia, unnecessary medical costs, and reasonably certain future medical costs. Id., ¶6.p. The court finds that plaintiffs have proffered conflicting expert evidence to raise a triable issue as to whether Dr. Bhayani breached the standard of care and caused or contributed to plaintiffs’ damages.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BROCKUS VS EMPIRECARE HEALTH ASSOCIATES INC

Because of the ruling on the Demurrer to the first, second and fourth causes of action the First Amended Complaint, the motion is moot as to the prayer for punitive damages and the prayer for attorney’s fees. Pursuant to the third cause of action for Negligence, Plaintiffs allege that the conduct of Defendants caused decedent to suffer severe emotional injury, severe pain and suffering and death, to his damage. These damages are noneconomic and not readily subject to precise calculation.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

JACKIE ROBINSON ET AL VS DIGESTIVE CARE CONSULTANTS ET AL

The Whipple procedure caused and/or contributed to injury to the patient, including to severe pain and suffering, emotional distress, chronic kidney diseases, diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, hyperkalemia, unnecessary medical costs, and reasonably certain future medical costs. Id., ¶6.p. The court finds that plaintiffs have proffered conflicting expert evidence to raise a triable issue as to whether Dr. Bhayani breached the standard of care and caused or contributed to plaintiffs’ damages.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BROCKUS VS EMPIRECARE HEALTH ASSOCIATES INC

Because of the ruling on the Demurrer to the first, second and fourth causes of action the First Amended Complaint, the motion is moot as to the prayer for punitive damages and the prayer for attorney’s fees. Pursuant to the third cause of action for Negligence, Plaintiffs allege that the conduct of Defendants caused decedent to suffer severe emotional injury, severe pain and suffering and death, to his damage. These damages are noneconomic and not readily subject to precise calculation.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

YOUNG JA LEE, ET AL. VS HAN KOOK MORTUARY

The court finds that the fraud and bad faith claims adequately plead malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent conduct supporting the imposition of punitive damages. Further, corporate ratification is adequately pled at ¶6. Relying on Quigley v. Pet (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 877, 887-88, Defendant contends that damages for the Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing “cause of action… exclude punitive damages, pain and suffering and/or medical damages.” (Motion, 7:20.)

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RUBEN NAZARYAN VS BETHANY WOODS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ET AL

The mere allegation of pain and suffering does not render all records pertaining to the plaintiff’s mental condition as discoverable, as such documents need to still be directly relevant to the mental condition at issue. (See e.g. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1015-1020.)

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

RUBEN NAZARYAN VS BETHANY WOODS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ET AL

The mere allegation of pain and suffering does not render all records pertaining to the plaintiff’s mental condition as discoverable, as such documents need to still be directly relevant to the mental condition at issue. (See e.g. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1015-1020.)

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2019

AKI MOEZZI ET AL VS LUIS ANTONIO RIVAS

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, as well as, Plaintiffs’ prayers for punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and pain and suffering damages. (See C.C.P. §438.)

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2019

BRITTANY ROYES VS NANOR MARDIROSSIAN ET AL

Plaintiff further argues that she will sustain an additional $5,000.00 damages due to a reimbursement to her carrier, Mercury Insurance. (Opposition, p. 3:26-3:27.) Plaintiff’s claimed damages plus the amounts that Defendants identify amount to $24,375.00. In addition, Plaintiff seeks damages for pain and suffering, which are not subject to precise measurement and, thus, are within the peculiar function of the jury. Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2019

MARTINEZ VS SANDOVAL

The Court is not convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict with respect to the damages awarded for past pain and suffering. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 657, 657(5).

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

PAUL DOTY JR VS FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH OF CANOGA PARK ET AL

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s medical treatment has been monitored for the past five years since the incident, including multiple successive neurologists, educational testing, pain and suffering, cognitive disabilities, emotional distress, and life care plan. Defendants argue presentation of this voluminous discovery would not be necessary if Defendants are found not liable for plaintiff’s injuries.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

MAHAMADOU SOUBOUNDOU VS CHAKKA CHIRAN JEEVI ET AL

He seeks damages for mental, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages and benefits, and emotional distress. Defendant seeks to compel the orthopedic, neurological, and neuropsychological examinations of Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MAHAMADOU SOUBOUNDOU VS CHAKKA CHIRAN JEEVI ET AL

He seeks damages for mental, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages and benefits, and emotional distress. Defendant seeks to compel the orthopedic, neurological, and neuropsychological examinations of Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALEJANDRO SILVA VS WARREN RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA INC ET AL

Defendants contend that as a result of his injuries, plaintiff is claiming emotional injury above and beyond general pain and suffering damages. On March 31, 2016, he underwent a psychological evaluation by Richard Horevitz, Ph.D. He reported depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, low energy, feeling helpless, easily agitated, decreased libido, difficulty with sexual activity, decreased concentration/focus, decreased memory, and decreased decision making. Dr.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

REZVAN KADKHODAZADEH VS VILMA MARTINEZ

Plaintiff’s request to amend the judgment in the Small Claims action to add $4,600.00 in damages was denied on March 23, 2018. (Id. at Exsh. C-D.) Satisfaction of the Judgment was entered in the Small Claims action on May 3, 2018. (Id. at Exh. D-1.) On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed the second Small Claims action, seeking to recover for her medical expenses and pain and suffering with respect to the motor vehicle accident. (Id. at Exh. E.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

JOHN ARVIZU ET AL VS PABLO CORONADO ET AL

John Arvizu alleges he suffered “physical and mental pain and suffering, including damages to [his] brain,” has lost wages, and will require future medical treatment. Thus, the issues of the extent of the injuries suffered by John Arvizu and Betty Arvizu as well as the cause of those injuries are common questions of law and fact in both the Los Angeles Superior Court case and the Arvizu Kern County case.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MICHAEL BLUM VS ANNA ALMASRI ET AL

Defendants argue, however, that all of his medical records are at issue because he is claiming medical, psychosocial, and physical damages as a result of the accident. The Court finds Plaintiff’s claimed injuries are not broad enough to justify discovery of all of Plaintiff’s medical records. Notably, Defendants failed to show Plaintiff is making more than a “garden variety” pain and suffering claim, such that psychological records would be at issue.

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2019

MARIA VICTORIA WHITFIELD VS MARC SEAN LAPSLEY SR ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ASHLEY RICHARDSON VS RIASAT KHAN ET AL.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 881, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 170, a case cited by Defendants, the court states that “[g]eneral damages include damages for ‘ “pain [and] suffering, emotional distress, and other forms of detriment that are sometimes characterized as subjective or not directly quantifiable.’ ” (Licudine, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at 892; emphasis added.) They are “damages that ‘necessarily result from the act complained of” or “ ‘flow from the injuries received.’ ” (Id. at 891.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

  • Judge

    Michael Mulvihill

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

BODALIA V. RAVIDRAN

The fact that damages for pain and suffering are not recoverable in a survivor action does not establish that Plaintiff Rekha Bodalia cannot seek to recover the financial damages (medical costs) Decedent suffered before his death as a result of Defendant’s alleged negligence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

DANNY RUIZ AGUILAR ET AL VS DIGNITY HEALTH ET AL

As a direct result, Plaintiff “suffered serious personal injury and physical and emotional pain and suffering.” The FAC alleges more than just conclusory facts about Defendants’ alleged conduct and failure to act. Plaintiff thus sufficiently alleges a willful misconduct cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MICHELLE CROW VS PAYMAN JOSEPH DANIELPOUR MD ET AL

Taleisnik concludes Plaintiff’s damages, including pain and suffering, the need for tendon repair surgery, deformity and her claim of infection caused by the placement of the stitches were not the result of a breach of the standard of care. (Taleisnik Decl., ¶ 37.) Defendants have met their initial burden of showing, by expert declaration, that they did not breach the standard of care or cause Plaintiff’s injuries. Dr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2019

LUEL ALEMSEGED WOLDESELASSIE VS BEVERLY HILLS DIALYSIS PARTNERSHIP

[and] while it is common to visit a loved one in a hospital and to be distressed by the loved one’s pain and suffering, it is highly uncommon to witness the apparent neglect of the patient’s immediate medical needs by medical personnel.” (Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159, 165, fn. 6.) Where the “injury-producing event continued for a period of time, and the plaintiff personally observed the event while it still was occurring . . . the bright line drawn in Thing v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

SKIFF V. MAVIS

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 30     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.