Tarrant County Jury Issues Defense Verdict in Motor Vehicle Negligence

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 lawsuit stemmed from a rear-end vehicle collision in Lexington, Kentucky, alleging negligent operation of a vehicle. Few additional details regarding the incident or the specific allegations made by the plaintiff were available from the record. The defendant in the case retained an orthopedic surgery expert. The resolution of the litigation was not specified.

On July 7, 2020, a vehicle driven by the plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant's vehicle on Cane Run Road. The minor collision resulted in no immediate injuries, but the plaintiff later sought chiropractic treatment for claimed soft-tissue symptoms, incurring over $10,000 in medical bills and seeking pain and suffering. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for damages. The defendant disputed negligence, asserting the plaintiff stopped suddenly and that claimed injuries were not compensable due to the minor impact. The defense also presented testimony that the plaintiff, post-collision, asked them to falsely identify the driver and later suggested they visit the plaintiff's chiropractor to "make some money," a proposition they claimed to have explored but rejected. The plaintiff denied these allegations, and the court limited cross-examination of the defendant's passenger on his criminal history. After a three-day trial, the jury was instructed to first determine if the plaintiff met specific injury and medical expense thresholds, and then to consider liability. The jury first found (10-2) the plaintiff had not sustained a permanent injury or incurred $1,000 of necessary medical expenses. They then unanimously concluded the defendant was not negligent, halting deliberations before assessing damages. The court entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing for a directed verdict on liability and medical bills, and citing improper tainting of proof and an error in seating a juror excused for cause. The defendant countered the juror objection was flawed and that the verdict aligned with evidence. The motion remained pending.

A plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit after a rear-end collision. The plaintiff sought damages, making a demand of $40,305. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's claims, presenting expert testimony from a neurological surgeon. Further details regarding the case's resolution were not available.

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.