IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 98-31400 Summary Calendar _______________

ROBERT SCHOEMER and GAIL SCHOEMER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS

MICHAEL W. GILL; SAMMY J. KISER; KISER INC; and HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE CO, Defendants-Appellees, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee. _________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (96-CV-203) _________________________

November 18, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, for pain and suffering, nothing for permanent Circuit Judges. disability, nothing for past lost wages, $8,000 for past medical expenses, and $15,000 for PER CURIAM:* future medical expenses. The jury further Following a jury trial in this diversity tort found that Gill's negligence was not a cause of case, the district court denied plaintiffs’ the loss of consortium damages claimed by motion for new trial. We affirm. Robert Schoemer. Judgment was entered, and plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial pursuant I. to FED. R. CIV. P. 59. The court denied the This action arises from a minor traffic motion, and we affirm. accident in which defendant Michael Gill backed his tractor-trailer rig into plaintiff Gail II. Schoemer's vehicle. A jury found that Gill's A district court has sound discretion to negligence was a proximate cause of damages grant or deny new trial motions. Therefore, sustained by Schoemer and awarded $2,000 we affirm a denial unless the plaintiff makes “a clear showing of an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s verdict, thus indicating that the trial court had abused its * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has discretion in refusing to find the jury’s verdict determined that this opinion should not be published contrary to the great weight of the evidence.” and is not precedent except under the limited Whitehead v. Food Max, Inc.,

, circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. The plaintiffs fail to make a clear showing of an absolute absence of evidence to support the verdict. Their claims of injury, and the extent thereof, were disputed at trial, and the jury was entitled to accept certain evidence presented by the plaintiffs and certain evidence presented by the defense. The court’s ruling adequately articulates the significant evidence supporting the verdict.

Plaintiffs cite Pagan v. Shoney’s, Inc.,

(5th Cir. 1991), for the proposition that the jury erred as a matter of law in awarding only $2,000 for past pain and suffering when it awarded future medical expenses of $15,000. Pagan holds only that as a matter of Louisiana law it is error to award special damages for medical expenses and lost wages without awarding general damages. See

.

That situation is not present here. Pagan does not hold that it is error to award future medical expenses without awarding damages for permanent disability; common sense dictates that one might require future medical treatment, but that that very treatment may enable one to perform fully without any disability. Likewise, the patient may suffer no further pain if the medical treatment is properly administered. Plaintiffs’ objections to the verdict as to loss of consortium are likewise without merit.

AFFIRMED.

2