Arizona Jury Reaches Verdict in Motor Vehicle Collision

A plaintiff alleged bilateral rotator cuff injuries resulted from paramedics' forceful removal of the plaintiff from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, presumably alleging negligence in the plaintiff's care. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in September 2006, concluding the case in favor of the defense.

A collision occurred on September 20, 2012, on Kentucky Avenue near Floyd Street in Louisville. The plaintiff, then age 41, was making a right turn when the defendant pulled from a space to the plaintiff's right, resulting in the crash. The plaintiff sustained a rotator cuff injury that required surgical repair. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging the defendant negligently pulled from a parking lane into the plaintiff's path. The plaintiff sought $3,917 for past medical expenses, up to $15,000 for future medicals, and $120,000 for pain and suffering. The defendant denied liability, arguing she was in a turn lane, not a parking lane. An independent medical examiner for the defense also linked the plaintiff's shoulder issues to pre-existing degenerative conditions. Following a trial, a jury found in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability. A defense judgment was subsequently entered, and the plaintiff received no damages.

A plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging a nurse negligently administered an injection, causing permanent injury. The plaintiff, who received injections for migraine headaches, claimed the defendant nurse failed to properly calculate anatomical landmarks before administering Phenergan in the right hip area. The plaintiff asserted that the caustic material was injected near the sciatic nerve, causing immediate severe pain, numbness, and a permanent limp. The plaintiff later developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and underwent surgical implantation of a neurostimulator for pain management. The defendant denied negligence, arguing the injection was not given in the wrong area and was unrelated to the plaintiff's complaints. The defendant noted a lack of immediate documentation for the plaintiff's pain complaints. The plaintiff countered that she reported immediate pain to the nurse and made documented complaints the following day. The plaintiff also argued that the nurse's deposition testimony, which demonstrated her landmark calculation, indicated an improper starting point for the injection. The defendant further suggested the plaintiff's difficulties stemmed from a car accident occurring several weeks after the injection. The plaintiff disputed this, stating the collision primarily resulted in cervical complaints and did not cause new hip issues, emphasizing consistent hip pain reports since the injection. After a week-long trial, the jury found for the plaintiff, awarding $2,000,000 for past and future pain and suffering. This award was subsequently reduced to $755,000 to comply with Maryland's medical malpractice cap on non-economic damages for the year the cause of action arose.

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming severe and permanent injuries. The plaintiff sought damages for significant pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional distress, and a diminished ability to enjoy life. During the proceedings, both sides presented expert medical testimony. The plaintiff's experts included specialists in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Sports Medicine, Osteopathic Medicine, and Physical Therapy. The defendant's expert was also a specialist in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. The case concluded with an award of $779,627 to the plaintiff.

A vehicle collision occurred in May 2008 on Stony Brook when a teenager, pulling from a private drive, struck a childcare worker's vehicle. The childcare worker sustained soft-tissue neck pain and was transported to the emergency room. Liability for the collision was later established by summary judgment. The injured worker subsequently filed a lawsuit in Louisville, seeking damages for medical bills, lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's case was complicated by involvement in a second crash a month later, though injuries were distinguished. The defendant disputed the claimed injuries, citing credibility, lack of objective proof, and a "threshold" defense. The jury found the plaintiff met the medical expense threshold but did not sustain a permanent injury. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff $8,184 for medical expenses but $0 for lost wages, impairment, and pain and suffering, resulting in a total verdict of $8,184. A judgment consistent with this verdict was entered. The plaintiff later moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was inadequate. The defendant countered, citing credibility issues. The motion was pending as of June 2016.