for her future medical expenses yet awarded her only nominal damages for her future mental pain and suffering and future loss of full mind. The jury could have found that medication will eliminate the symptoms of her depression. Put differently, on this facts of this case future medical expenses do not necessarily entail future pain and suffering or future loss of full mind. Plaintiffs’ cited cases are all distinguishable. In each of the four cases, a court found an irreconcilable inconsistency in a jury’s verdict, because the jury awarded a plaintiff damages for medical expenses yet failed to award any damages for such plaintiffs necessarily corresponding pain and suffering. Cf. Vansickle v. Compass Marine Inv., No. 93-3042, 1993 WL 261070, *1-*2 (5th Cir. July 1, 1993) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Brooks v. Brattleboro Mem.’l Hosp., 958 F.2d
holding that a jury cannot award damages for medical expenses and lost wages without also awarding damages for pain and suffering where the plaintiff was injured due to the defendants negligence holding that pain and suffering does not survive the death of the injured holding that prejudgment interest may properly be added to damage awards for past lost wages medical expenses that have been incurred and past pain and suffering but not future loss of earnings future medical expenses andor future pain and suffering holding that the alleged inconsistency between the awarding of future medical expenses and the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering could be readily resolved and did not require a new trial holding that jury could not logically award all costs for the surgery and no damages for future pain and suffering