Short answer: In Pinney v. Carrera, a Salt Lake County jury awarded $300,000 in non-economic damages to a driver who, at trial, chose not to ask for her medical bills at all. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that she still had to clear Utah’s no-fault threshold, that her treating chiropractor’s testimony about a permanent herniated disc cleared it, and that the jury had a reasonable basis for the award.
People often assume a car crash claim is worth a multiple of the medical bills. This case is a useful counterexample. The bills were modest, they were never put in front of the jury, and the verdict still came in at six figures because the evidence showed an injury that would not go away.
West Injury Law did not handle this case. We discuss it because it is a published Utah decision that shows how pain-and-suffering damages and the no-fault threshold work together.
What Happened
The decision is Pinney v. Carrera, 2019 UT App 12, 438 P.3d 902, filed January 10, 2019. The trial was in the Third District Court in Salt Lake County.
The defendant ran a stop sign and hit the plaintiff’s car (¶2). In discovery, the plaintiff “produced approximately $11,000 in chiropractic bills” (¶2).
The court did not throw those bills out. The plaintiff made a choice. In the court’s words, she “elected not to seek an award of economic damages but instead chose to focus on non-economic damages associated with her herniated disc” (¶3). She argued that, because the injury was permanent, she should be compensated “$50 to $75 per day for pain and suffering until she reached the age of eighty” (¶3). When the defense moved for judgment on economic damages, she stipulated that she was not seeking them, and that motion was granted (¶6).
The evidence of the injury came from several sources:
- Her chiropractor testified that she had a herniated disc, that the disc injury was “permanent,” and that it would “plague” her for the rest of her life (¶4). With therapy she got “fairly close to normal range of motion,” but “We couldn’t ever get 100 percent” (¶4).
- An MRI was admitted that showed disc bulges and a disc herniation (¶4).
- Her daughter described difficulty picking up small children and being unable to ride an amusement park ride (¶5).
- A friend she lived with for sixteen months after the crash testified about how the injuries affected her life (¶5).
The Verdict
The Special Verdict Form, filed October 20, 2016, in Case No. 150900750 before Judge Paige Petersen, shows the jury’s answers:
- Was the defendant negligent? Yes.
- Did the defendant’s negligence cause injury or harm to the plaintiff? Yes.
- Was the plaintiff negligent? No.
- Non-economic damages: $300,000.
For context, the plaintiff’s lawyer had asked for an amount ranging from $419,000 to $630,000 (¶35). The jury awarded less than the request, but far more than the bills that were never presented.
The defendant, who was not present at trial (¶10), moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The trial court denied both, and he appealed.
What the Court of Appeals Held
The no-fault threshold still applied. The plaintiff argued the statute “does not require a plaintiff to prove any elements at trial.” The court disagreed. The phrase “may not maintain a cause of action” means that to prevail, “a party must show that he or she ‘has sustained’ one of the five threshold injuries” (¶16). Skipping economic damages did not skip the threshold: “Plaintiff is required to show that she met the threshold requirements of the statute” (¶18).
A treating chiropractor’s testimony can establish permanent impairment. The defendant argued that a permanent impairment finding had to come from someone other than a treating provider, by way of a formal impairment rating. The court rejected that. An “objective finding” of permanent impairment “need not be established by a witness other than a current or past treating physician,” and “need only be demonstrated through evidence other than the plaintiff’s own subjective testimony” (¶27). The court defined “impairment” as “the loss of function” (¶25).
Applying that here, the chiropractor’s testimony, the repeated exams, the MRI, and what her daughter and friend observed showed permanence, loss of bodily function, and an impairment “perceptible to those other than the injured person” (¶32). “Accordingly, Plaintiff met the threshold requirement” (¶32).
$300,000 had a reasonable basis. The court quoted the Utah Supreme Court: “There is no set formula to determine noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering” (¶34, quoting Judd v. Drezga). The trial court pointed to testimony that she could no longer do some things she used to do, testimony that the injury was permanent, and counsel’s damages request (¶35). The Court of Appeals added that “a large award does not equate to an improper one” when there is a reasonable basis for it, and that “Where the jury heard evidence that Plaintiff would be plagued by this painful injury every day of her life, the verdict here is within the bounds of reasonableness” (¶36).
The causation instruction was fine. The defense wanted an instruction using the words “proximate cause.” The trial court used the Model Utah Jury Instructions version instead. The court held there was “no substantive difference” between the two other than the word “proximate” (¶40), and if anything the model instruction was narrower because it includes foreseeability.
The Threshold Today
The threshold is in Utah Code 31A-22-309(1). The version the court quoted listed five categories. The current version, effective May 6, 2026, lists six: death; dismemberment; permanent disability or permanent impairment based upon objective findings; permanent disfigurement; a bone fracture; or medical expenses in excess of $3,000.
Two limits on who the threshold covers are worth knowing. By its terms it applies to a person who has or is required to have PIP coverage, and it does not apply to an uninsured motorist claim (31A-22-309(1)(b)). The court also noted in a footnote that there may be situations where a plaintiff is not covered by the statute, such as an out-of-state driver whose policy has no first-party no-fault benefits (n.5). For how PIP and the threshold fit together, see Is Utah a No-Fault State?
What This Means for an Injured Person
- Modest bills do not cap pain and suffering. General damages are measured by the injury and its effect on your life, not by a multiple of the bills. Our guide to pain and suffering damages in Utah covers how juries are told to weigh them, and damages in Utah personal injury cases covers the other categories of loss.
- The threshold is still a gate. Choosing not to claim bills does not get a car crash case around 31A-22-309(1). One of the listed categories has to be proven.
- What your treating provider says about permanence matters. In this case the key evidence came from the provider who actually treated the injury, backed by imaging and repeated exams. Tell your providers about every limitation, and keep your follow-up visits.
- People who know you are evidence too. The daughter and friend helped show the impairment was real and visible to others, not just described by the plaintiff.
- Disc and soft-tissue injuries are not automatically small. Insurers often discount them, especially after a crash with light vehicle damage. See our posts on whiplash and soft-tissue claims and injury claims after low property damage.
- Every case is different. One verdict does not predict another. Juries have wide discretion, in both directions. If you are weighing whether to try a case, our page on jury trials in Utah personal injury cases explains how that process works.
Talk to a Utah Injury Attorney
If an insurer is valuing your claim by the size of your medical bills, it may be leaving out the part of the injury that lasts. We can review your records, your coverage, and whether your claim clears the threshold.
Hurt in Utah? Call (801) 921-5134 or send us your case for a free consultation. No attorney fees unless we win. Hablamos Español.