Tarrant County Jury Awards $339,285 in Motor Vehicle Negligence

A rear-end collision occurred in Norwood, Ohio, on November 14, 2017, involving the plaintiff and an at-fault driver. The plaintiff sustained a C5-6 disc injury, requiring fusion surgery approximately ten months after the crash, and an L4-5 injury, which led to a microdiskectomy in December 2018. Medical bills for these treatments totaled $80,739. The at-fault driver's insurer settled for its $25,000 policy limits without a lawsuit. Following the initial settlement, the plaintiff filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) action against their own insurer, seeking compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The plaintiff's insurer disputed the extent of damages, presenting testimony from a defense orthopedic expert who concluded the plaintiff's treatment course was unrelated to the crash, citing a thirteen-year history of similar symptoms. The defense also raised a $1,000 medical expense threshold defense. The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial in Florence, focusing on causation and damages. The jury first determined the plaintiff met the $1,000 medical threshold. They then awarded the plaintiff $80,939 for medical expenses and an additional $195,000 for pain and suffering, totaling $275,939. A judgment was entered for $240,739, accounting for the underlying policy limits and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. The defense had made an $18,000 offer of judgment.

On May 26, 2004, a plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was rear-ended near the intersection of Bedford Avenue and De Kalb Avenue in Brooklyn. The plaintiff's vehicle was preparing to make a U-turn when the collision occurred. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging the driver of the striking vehicle was negligent and the vehicle owner was vicariously liable. The defendants conceded liability, and the case proceeded to trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a herniated disc at C5-6, seeking medical treatment 21 days after the incident. Treatment included chiropractic care, acupuncture, massage therapy, and hot and cold packs over several months. The plaintiff reported missing two days of work and alleged permanent neck pain, decreased range of motion, and episodes of immobility, asserting an inability to engage in activities such as dancing, playing basketball, or wearing high heels. A family medicine physician testified on the plaintiff's behalf. The defendants argued that any injuries sustained by the plaintiff resolved within 90 days of the accident, with the decreased range of motion improving within three months. A radiologist testified for the defense, stating that the plaintiff's MRIs were normal and indicated no injury. Prior to the verdict, the parties agreed to cap any damages award at $25,000, which represented the policy limits. The plaintiff had also settled a claim with the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger for $3,500. Following the trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000, including $10,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future pain and suffering. The final recovery was then reduced to the agreed-upon $25,000 cap.

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.