|
Hi,
I need your help.. this is going to trial soon.. Please share your thoughts with me on this auto case..
Thanks,
Amy
On May 20, 1996, the plaintiff was the front-seat passenger in a 1988 Camaro that was eastbound in the right-hand lane of a busy suburban boulevard. A semi-truck, also eastbound, was in the center lane. The truck changed lanes as the Camaro tried to pass it on the right. The truck bumped the left rear quarterpanel of the Camaro, causing the Camaro to fishtail, and then the truck bumped the left front quarterpanel of the Camaro, causing the Camaro to straighten out. The Camaro may have hit the curb during this sequence, but it ended up in the roadway. About $1,500 in damage was caused to the Camaro.
Police were called to the scene. The investigating officer observed that the plaintiff and his friends (the driver of the Camaro and the back seat passenger) were standing around in no apparent distress. Neither the driver or the back seat passenger reported any injuries.
Four days later, the plaintiff (who was wearing his seat belt during the accident) sought medical treatment. He complained of pain in his neck, back, shoulders, ribs, and jaw. He was diagnosed with neck and back strains. Six months after the accident, the plaintiff had surgery on his right wrist for carpal tunnel syndrome, which resulted from being jostled during the accident. About a year after the accident, in March of 1997, the plaintiff had the first of two shoulder surgeries. The second shoulder surgery was six months later. The plaintiff attributes his shoulder injuries to bracing himself during the accident and hitting the passenger side door and window. In January of 2001, the plaintiff had surgery on his lower back to repair a herniated disk. Shortly after the accident, the plaintiff complained of pain in his left knee, which was attributed to the accident. An MRI of his left knee showed injury to the joint. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that his right knee, was also injured in the accident, which is consistent with his claim that he struck the passenger side door during the accident. The right knee has never been tested diagnostically.
Who is the plaintiff?
The plaintiff is a 58-year-old medical doctor (oncology/hematology), and the physician he saw four days after the accident is his friend and business partner. Together, they own a medical clinic that has a sign indicating its specialization in "Automobile Accidents." The plaintiff's business partner wrote a letter for him in 1991 excusing the plaintiff from jury duty because the plaintiff had a history of chronic back pain and could not sit for extended periods of time. The medical clinic's records for the plaintiff in 1991 are non-existent, however, and the plaintiff denies any previous history of back problems. Objective diagnostic tests, such as MRI's and x-rays, suggest that the plaintiff's back problems pre-existed the 1996 accident, and one of the plaintiff's medical experts believes his back has degenerative problems. Since the 1996 accident, the plaintiff has been in two other car accidents and had a fall that required emergency room treatment. The plaintiff claims that none of these events has made his condition worse.
Because of complaints about pain, the plaintiff takes prescription painkillers. The plaintiff has been receiving pain relief injections since late 1996. He says these medications affect his ability to make quick and appropriate judgments, and as a result he is not able to practice medicine the way he did before the accident. However, the plaintiff worked full time for five years after the accident. He closed his practice right before his case was scheduled to go to trial. He has also kept his credentials current. The plaintiff's physical therapist believes that the plaintiff has no physical limitations on his ability to work, and the plaintiff's office staff were surprised when he closed his practice. Today, the plaintiff performs physicals for patients of a psychiatric hospital. His annual income has dropped significantly, and as a result an expert economist calculates his past and future wage loss to be approximately $3,000,000. The plaintiff's medical expenses since the accident total approximately $100,000.
The plaintiff's treating doctors believe his current problems were caused by the accident.
The defense's injury causation expert, however, disagrees because the accident did not involve sufficient forces to cause any serious or permanent injury
What do you think?
Thanks in advance
|
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email