New SD Supreme Court Case: Medical Expenses Go Hand in Hand with Pain and Suffering Damages

On May 26, 2010, the South Dakota Supreme Court released a new opinion that contains a very interesting point of law concerning damages in personal injury cases.  Damages are what a plaintiff is awarded if the plaintiff wins the lawsuit, and usually takes the form of money.  In this case, Reinfeld v. Hutcheson, the Court re-affirmed the principle that, in general, a verdict in a personal injury lawsuit that awards damages for medical expenses but not damages for pain and suffering is inadequate. 

It is fairly easy for someone to imagine what someone’s medical expenses will be.  After all, a jury can see the plaintiff’s medical records and bills to come up with that amount.  Pain and suffering can be trickier to put a finger on.  It can be difficult for a jury to really identify how much a person should be compensated for, for his or her subjective pain and suffering.

What this new case clarifies is that, in general, medical expenses go part and parcel with pain and suffering.  In other words, if a plaintiff has had to undergo medical treatment for injuries, it is necessarily implicit or logically follows that the plaintiff will have experienced pain and suffering.  After all, at its essence, the purpose of medical treatment is to alleviate pain.  Thus, if a jury awards damages for medical expenses for the treatment of pain, then it follows that the jury should also award damages for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering. 

You can read the entire opinion here.