NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

McDONALD, J.

In this appeal, an apartment owner/lessor challenges a default judgment against it, wherein the trial court awarded damages to a lessee who was injured when a piece of plywood from her front porch ceiling fell and struck her.

After the appeal was lodged, this court issued a show cause order directing the parties to establish the status of other proceedings having a potential effect on the appeal of the default judgment. Specifically, the parties were directed to address assertions made in brief that: (1) the trial court had stayed this matter pending the appellant's institution of bankruptcy proceedings, and (2) the appellant had filed a petition in the trial court to annul the default judgment. Based on submissions in response to the show cause order, it appears the appellant's bankruptcy proceeding has been dismissed, and its petition to annul the default judgment remains pending in the trial court.

Under La. C.C.P. art. 2005, an action of nullity does not affect the right to appeal, and a judgment "may be annulled prior to or pending an appeal therefrom[.]" Thus, an appeal of a judgment and an action of nullity of that same judgment may be sought simultaneously. Assensoh v. Diamond Nails, 04-1130 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/16/05), 897 So.2d 806, 810 (citing 1 Maraist and Lemmon, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Civil Procedure § 12.6 (1999)), writ denied, 05-0601 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1073.1 Therefore, notwithstanding the pending action of nullity, we now address the merits of the appeal, and for the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Dox Apartments, LLC (Dox) and Pleasant Bell executed a month-to-month lease agreement wherein Dox leased an apartment to Ms. Bell beginning June 1, 2011. On September 4, 2011, a rainy and windy day, Ms. Bell, seventy years old, and her son, Ivory, were sitting on the porch in front of her apartment. As the rain fell harder and began to blow under the porch, Ms. Bell rose from her chair to go inside, when a loose piece of plywood from the porch ceiling fell and struck her on the right shoulder.

A few days after the accident, Ms. Bell received treatment from a local hospital emergency room, where she was diagnosed with a soft tissue injury to her right shoulder, muscle spasms of the neck, and a cervical strain. Less than four months after the accident, she underwent right rotator cuff repair surgery. Ms. Bell's orthopedic surgeon later referred her to a second surgeon for possible additional right shoulder surgery. Within approximately one year of the accident, x-rays and an MRI of Ms. Bell's cervical spine revealed a herniated disc and several disc bulges, and Ms. Bell was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy. At the time judgment was rendered in this case, Ms. Bell had not yet undergone another right shoulder surgery or the neck surgery.

In January 2012, Ms. Bell filed the instant suit against Dox, alleging it was liable for her damages as the owner and lessor of the apartment complex, because the building's ruin, vice, or defect caused her injuries. After Dox did not answer Ms. Bell's petition, she filed a motion for preliminary default against Dox, which the trial court granted. In due course, the trial court held a hearing on confirmation of the default judgment, at which Ms. Bell presented testimonial and documentary evidence. On January 10, 2013, the trial court signed a default judgment against Dox, awarding Ms. Bell damages totaling $494,066.53, plus judicial interest, including: past medical expenses of $44,066.53; future medical expenses of $100,000.00; past and future damages for pain and suffering of $300,000.00; and damages for loss of enjoyment of life of $50,000.00.

In reasons for judgment given in open court at the end of the confirmation hearing, the trial court stated, in pertinent part:

Dox appeals from this adverse judgment, contending the trial court erred in rendering the default judgment because: (1) Ms. Bell failed to prove the cause of the defect and/or the estimated costs of repairs as required by the parties' lease agreement; (2) the trial court failed to address and/or allocate any comparative fault to Ms. Bell; and (3) Ms. Bell presented insufficient evidence to prove her claim for future medical expenses and future general damages.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law

A judgment of default must be confirmed by proof of the demand sufficient to establish a prima facie case. La. C.C.P. art. 1702(A). At the confirmation hearing, the plaintiff must present competent evidence that convinces the court that it is more probable than not that he would prevail in a trial on the merits. Signlite, Inc. v. Northshore Service Center, Inc., 05-2444 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/9/07), 959 So.2d 904, 906. When a demand is based upon a delictual obligation, the plaintiff's testimony with corroborating evidence, which may be by affidavits and exhibits annexed thereto that contain facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case, shall be admissible, self-authenticating, and sufficient proof of such demand. La. C.C.P. art. 1702(B)(2). Properly certified medical records are admissible in establishing a prima facie case, without accompanying oral medical testimony or sworn narrative report. Gorman v. Miller, 12-0412 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/13/13), ___ So.3d ___, 2013 WL 6019525.

There is a presumption that a default judgment is supported by sufficient evidence, but this presumption may be rebutted by the record upon which the judgment is rendered. Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 08-1111 (La. 5/5/09), 9 So.3d 815, 820. In reviewing a default judgment, an appellate court is restricted to determining the sufficiency of the evidence offered in support of the judgment, and this determination is a factual one governed by the manifest error standard of review. Id., 9 So.3d at 818.

Causation and Apportionment of Fault

We first address Dox's argument that the evidence Ms. Bell introduced at the confirmation hearing was insufficient to establish its liability, because there was no evidence regarding the cause of the alleged defect and/or the cost of repair. Under Paragraph 7 of the lease agreement, Dox's obligation to make repairs was "limited to necessary repairs to the roof, structure, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems of the improvements, but only to the extent that the repairs exceeded $10.00 in cost and [did] not arise out of negligence of the [lessee]...."

At the confirmation hearing, Ms. Bell introduced several photographs showing the porch ceiling from where the loose piece of plywood fell. She testified that these photographs showed the area of the porch right outside her front door and were taken approximately two days after the accident. She also testified that before the piece of plywood fell and struck her, it had been "kind of hanging" and she had reported it to the apartment manager a couple of months before it fell. Further, Ivory Bell testified that he saw the piece of plywood fall and hit his mother on the shoulder and around her head.

At the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, the trial court specifically found that: Dox's failure to properly maintain the apartment building resulted in the collapse of the plywood upon Ms. Bell; that the falling plywood caused Ms. Bell's neck and right shoulder injuries; and that future surgeries to her neck and right shoulder were necessary.

Whether a defect caused a plaintiff's damages is a factual finding, and an appellate court may not overturn a factfinder's finding of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless clearly wrong. Goza v. Parish of West Baton Rouge, 08-0086 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/5/09), 21 So.3d 320, 334, writ denied, 09-2146 (La. 12/11/09), 23 So.3d 919, cert. denied, 560 U.S. 904, 130 S.Ct. 3277, 176 L.Ed.2d 1184 (2010). After a review of the record, particularly the photographs showing the porch ceiling from where the loose piece of plywood fell, along with the corroborating testimony, we find there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Dox failed to maintain the apartment building in good condition; its implied finding that the cost of repair exceeded $10.00; and that Dox's failure to repair the porch ceiling caused injury to Ms. Bell. The trial court did not manifestly err in this regard, and this assignment of error is without merit.

Dox also claims the trial court erred in failing to address comparative fault and allocating some degree of fault to Ms. Bell. As with causation, the factfinder's allocation of fault is subject to the manifest error standard of review. Smegal v. Gettys, 10-0648 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10), 48 So.3d 431, 439. In this case, the record shows that Ms. Bell sat on her front porch on a windy day knowing that the porch ceiling in front of her apartment needed repair. The record also shows, however, that Ms. Bell had reported the loose piece of plywood to Dox management months before it fell, and Dox had taken no action to repair the porch ceiling. The trial court was presented with this evidence and did not assess any fault to Ms. Bell. After reviewing the record, and considering the respective parties' conduct, we cannot say the trial court's allocation of no fault to Ms. Bell in this case was manifestly erroneous. This assignment of error is without merit.

Necessity of Future Medical Treatment

We next address Dox's argument that Ms. Bell presented insufficient evidence to establish the necessity of future right shoulder replacement surgery and/or future neck surgery. The proper standard for determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to future medical expenses is proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the future medical expense will be medically necessary. Menard v. Lafayette Insurance Company, 09-1869 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So.3d 996, 1006. Although future medical expenses must be established with some degree of certainty, they do not have to be established with absolute certainty, as an award for future medical expenses is by nature somewhat speculative. Brown v. City of Madisonville, 07-2104 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/24/08), 5 So.3d 874, 889, writ denied, 08-2987 (La. 2/20/09), 1 So.3d 498. Thus, we review the record to assess the sufficiency of the evidence Ms. Bell offered to support her claim that future surgeries are medically necessary. See Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 9 So.3d at 818.

Three days after the incident, on September 7, 2011, Ms. Bell went to the Baton Rouge General Medical Center emergency room with complaints of right neck and right shoulder pain. X-rays were taken of her neck and shoulder. The attending physician noted degenerative changes to Ms. Bell's neck and a "chronic full thickness rotator cuff tear" to her right shoulder, but no evidence of acute fractures at either site.3 She was diagnosed with a soft tissue injury to her right shoulder, muscle spasms of the neck, and a cervical strain. She was given an injection, advised to follow up with her personal physician, and was discharged.

On September 19, 2011, Dr. Theodore Knatt, an orthopedic surgeon who had previously treated Ms. Bell, saw her for complaints of right shoulder pain. Ms. Bell told Dr. Knatt that she had been struck by a piece of plywood a week ago, and that, before the incident, her shoulder was "doing well."4 Dr. Knatt recommended a right shoulder arthroscopy. On December 22, 2011, Dr. Knatt performed a rotator cuff repair to Ms. Bell's right shoulder. After her surgery, beginning in April 2012, Ms. Bell received home health care and physical therapy for rotator cuff syndrome. The home health care medical records do not indicate complaints of neck pain by Ms. Bell early on after her rotator cuff surgery, but these records do establish that she continued to experience persistent right shoulder pain. At office visits in February, May, and June of 2012, Dr. Knatt noted in his records the possibility that Ms. Bell would need additional surgery on her shoulder. He ultimately referred her to Dr. Darryl W. Peterson, also an orthopedic surgeon, for a reverse right shoulder arthroplasty once her pain reached a certain level of severity.

On August 16, 2012, Dr. Peterson performed an initial assessment of Ms. Bell's condition, where spine and right shoulder x-rays revealed that her "C4-5, 5-6 disc space [was] completely obliterated" and that she had "severe osteoarthritis of [her right] humeral head." Dr. Peterson ordered an MRI of Ms. Bell's neck, and indicated the need to "[r]ule out [a] rotator cuff tear and cervical radiculopathy." The MRI revealed a C3-C4 disc herniation and broad-based disc bulges at levels C3-C4, C4-C5, C5-C6, and C6-C7 of Ms. Bell's cervical spine.

Dr. Peterson referred Ms. Bell to Dr. Sean Graham at the Spine Diagnostic and Treatment Center, who first saw Ms. Bell on September 6, 2012, with a primary complaint of right shoulder pain. He noted Ms. Bell's report that she had "recently [developed] neck [and] left should pain for past 2 weeks." In his records, Dr. Graham noted that Ms. Bell was "planning to undergo another operation of [her] right shoulder with Dr. Peterson" and that she had another appointment with Dr. Peterson the next week. At a follow up appointment on October 4, 2012, Dr. Graham diagnosed Ms. Bell with uncontrolled cervical radiculopathy.5 He noted that she had "an upcoming shoulder replacement [with] Dr. Peterson," but that Dr. Peterson wanted to "hold off on the shoulder replacement until after her cervical radiculopathy [was] treated." Dr. Graham ordered that a CESI be scheduled, prescribed medications, and instructed Ms. Bell to return in two weeks.

In addition to the above medical evidence, Ms. Bell presented her own testimony as well as the testimony of her son, Ivory, at the confirmation hearing. Both testified that, before the September 4, 2011 accident, Ms. Bell could use her right arm and could lift it above her head without problems. According to Mr. Bell, who visited his mother regularly, Ms. Bell was able to "reach up on top of the refrigerator" or into a high cabinet before the accident but could no longer lift her arm higher than shoulder height because of pain since the accident. Regarding her neck injury, Ms. Bell acknowledged she had a disc herniation at the C3-C4 level of her cervical spine, that surgery had been recommended, and that she was planning to have the surgery performed. Mr. Bell testified that he had not noticed his mother complaining of neck pain before the accident, but she has had neck pain since the accident, for which heating pads have provided no relief. Both testified that, at the time of the hearing, approximately sixteen months after the accident, Ms. Bell experienced daily pain. Further, Ms. Bell testified that the pain has had a significant impact on her, because she was raising her then eight-year-old great grandson and had to take care of both him and herself. She admitted that she had not yet recovered from the accident.

After a review of the record, we find that Ms. Bell presented sufficient competent evidence, consisting of testimony and medical evidence, to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the two future surgeries are medically necessary. See Menard, 31 So.3d at 1006. Dr. Knatt's records from February, May, and June of 2012 demonstrate that Ms. Bell continued to experience right shoulder pain following her December 2011 right rotator cuff repair and that future additional surgery was a definite possibility. The home health care medical records also demonstrate that Ms. Bell continued to have persistent right shoulder pain following the surgery. And, although Dr. Peterson's records are not exactly clear, Dr. Graham's records demonstrate that Dr. Peterson referred Ms. Bell to Dr. Graham for treatment of her uncontrolled cervical radiculopathy so that Dr. Peterson could then perform right shoulder replacement surgery.

Regarding the future neck surgery, we note that, within approximately one year of the accident, x-rays and an MRI demonstrated that Ms. Bell had one herniated disc and several bulging discs in her cervical spine. She was also later diagnosed with uncontrolled cervical radiculopathy. And, although Dr. Knatt's records nor the home health care medical records indicate complaints of neck pain by Ms. Bell, both Dr. Peterson's records and Dr. Graham's substantiate her need for neck surgery. Further, Ms. Bell testified that her surgeons wanted her to have the neck surgery, and although she was scared, she was going to have it done. Mr. Bell specifically testified that his mother had no problems with her neck until after the accident. Thus, Ms. Bell's testimony and Mr. Bell's testimony corroborate the necessity of the future surgeries as indicated by the medical records. The trial court did not err in finding there was sufficient evidence to support the need for the two future surgeries.

As part of its argument that Ms. Bell presented insufficient evidence to establish the necessity of the future surgeries, Dox also argued that, consequently, "unspecified portions of the $300,000.00 and/or $50,000 general damage awards for future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life were [also] manifestly erroneous." Because we affirm the trial court's finding that the two future surgeries are necessary, we also find no error in the trial court's award of general damages associated with these future surgeries. See Graffia v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 08-1480 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/13/09), 6 So.3d 270, 272-73. Further, we note that Dox has not appealed the amount of the general damage award.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the January 10, 2013 default judgment against Dox Apartments, LLC, awarding damages in favor of Pleasant Bell. Costs of the appeal are assessed to Dox Apartments, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

McCLENDON, J., agrees in part and dissents in part.

While I cannot disagree with the majority that Ms. Bell presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that her need for future shoulder surgery was causally related to the accident, I dissent from the majority's conclusion that Ms. Bell established the causal relationship between her future cervical surgery and the accident.

Confirmation of a preliminary default judgment is similar to a trial with the defendant being absent. The plaintiff is required to present admissible and competent evidence establishing a prima facie case, proving both the existence and the validity of the claim as though the defendant denied each allegation of the petition. Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 08-1111 (La. 5/5/09), 9 So.3d 815, 820; Northshore Regional Medical Center, L.L.C. v. Dill, 12-0850 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/22/13), 115 So.3d 475, 480, writ denied, 13-0866 (La. 5/31/13), 118 So.3d 396). Simply stated, in order to confirm a default, "the plaintiff must present competent evidence that convinces the court that it is probable that he would prevail at trial on the merits." Arias, 9 So.3d at 820. "Because at a default confirmation there is no objecting party, to prevent reversal on appeal, both plaintiff and the trial judge should be vigilant to assure that the judgment rests on admissible evidence" that establishes a prima facie case. Arias, 9 So.3d at 820 (citing George W. Pugh, Robert Force, Gerald A. Rault, Jr., & Kerry Triche, Handbook on Louisiana Evidence Law 677 (2007)).

In a personal injury suit, plaintiff bears the burden of proving a causal relationship between the injury sustained and the accident which caused the injury. Yohn v. Brandon, 01-1896 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/27/02), 835 So.2d 580, 584, writ denied, 02-2592 (La.12/13/02), 831 So.2d 989. Plaintiff must prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. The test for determining the causal relationship between the accident and subsequent injury is whether the plaintiff proved through medical testimony that it is more probable than not that the subsequent injuries were caused by the accident. Id.

While the evidence introduced by Ms. Bell reflects that she may need cervical surgery, there is no medical testimony establishing a causal relationship between the accident and the future cervical surgery. Nothing in the medical records or in Dr. Knatt's sworn narrative report attributes Ms. Bell's cervical problems to the subject accident.1 Based on the record presented, Ms. Bell failed to meet her burden of proof in this regard and the trial court erred in awarding future medicals related to her cervical surgery and in considering said surgery in awarding general damages.