Page:Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co., LLC (20-30038) Opinion.pdf/3

 (2) past, present, and future loss of enjoyment of life; (3) past medical expenses; (4) past lost wages; (5) loss of college tuition; and, relevant to this appeal, (5)(6) [sic] $1,000,000 for future pain, suffering, mental anguish, disability, scarring, and disfigurement.

Only the Casino appeals. It seeks review of the district court’s denials of motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for remittitur or a new trial on damages.

On appeal, the Casino raises three issues. First, it argues that the evidence is insufficient to support one or more of Echeverry’s theories of negligence and it is therefore entitled to a new trial or judgment as a matter of law. Second, it argues that four items of evidence—the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) rating, the certificate of insurance, the Casino’s internal policies, and the construction-site photographs—were erroneously and harmfully admitted into evidence. Finally, it argues that the $1,000,000 award for future pain and suffering violates this court’s maximum-recovery rule and entitles the Casino to remittitur or a new trial on damages.

We first discuss the sufficiency of the evidence.

I. Sufficiency of the evidence

We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, considering the facts in the light that most favors the jury verdict. Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 842 F.3d 883, 891 (5th Cir. 2016). We cannot reverse a denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law unless the “jury’s factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence or [] the legal conclusions implied from the jury’s verdict cannot in law be supported by those findings.” American Home Assurance Co. v. United