Having problems with message search?
Hi folks,
this time I am giving you all the info that was sent to me.. I apologize in advance for the length, but I want to see what you think given all the info!!
thanks in advance!!
Amy
This involves an automobile accident on 6/9/1999.
The Defendant and Plaintiff were traveling in opposite directions on a
four-lane road with two lanes in each direction and a center left
turn lane.
Defendant made a left turn across Plaintiff's path.
Defendant turned from the left turn lane and Plaintiff was
traveling in the left through lane.
The front of the Plaintiff's vehicle struck the right side of the Defendant's vehicle in the right front fender and right side door area. The Defendant driver was
in her 80s and confused about several facts leading up to and
through the accident.
The Defendant claims she has a left turn
arrow. The Plaintiff claims to have a solid green ball and that the
light was green for at least 10-15 seconds before she reached
the intersection traveling 35-40 miles per hour in a 45 mile per
hour zone.
It had been raining heavily before the accident and
there was a light drizzle at the time of the accident.
An independent witness traveling several car lengths behind the
Plaintiff confirms her information regarding the light and the
sequence of movements of the vehicles.
The witness also opines that the Plaintiff could not have done anything to avoid the
collision under the circumstances. A traffic engineer will be
called at trial to confirm that the traffic signals could not have
both a left turn arrow for the defendant and a solid green ball for
the Plaintiff. If such a scenario occurred, a default emergency
mode would be entered wherein the traffic lights in all four
directions would flash yellow.
The 38 year old Plaintiff suffered a pilon fracture of the tibia
and fibula bones in her right ankle from the impact as her foot
was on the brake pedal attempting to stop. Both of these bones
were severely shattered and had to be surgically repaired with
the insertion of metal pins, screws and synthetic bone to fill in
voids where numerous small pieces of bone were lost. She was
in a cast for three months, underwent physical therapy, and
returned to work as a preschool teacher for a corporate daycare
center 18 weeks after the initial injury. The severity of the
fracture resulted in a recommendation by the treating
orthopaedic physician that she undergo a full ankle fusion, or
placement of an artificial ankle joint, when the pain of walking on
this foot and ankle became too great. The pain would intensify
because arthritis would form in the ankle and make it more and
more difficult to walk. The Plaintiff is now ready to undergo the
fusion, but is unable to do so presently because of lack of funds
in order to obtain the medical treatment and to remain off work
for recovery. All of this is confirmed by the doctor who
examined the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant! The opinion
of both doctors is that the severity of the injury results in a
permanent injury which translates into a 14% functional
impairment of the body as a whole. By comparison, a complete
amputation of the foot at the ankle joint would result in a 25%
whole body functional impairment! This is due to the incorrect
angulation of the bones at the ankle joint in their healed position
and the almost complete loss of range of motion in the ankle due
to the fracture and arthritis that has appeared since the original
surgery.
Plaintiff’s employment as a pre-school/daycare worker
required her to work 8-12 hour days, depending upon schedule.
The job requirements called for her to lift 10-60 lbs., sometimes
in awkward positions, on a regular basis. It also calls for her to
stand for 95% of the day, to sometimes lift more than 60 lbs.,
and to be able to react quickly to crisis situations which occur in
the care of a young child. The Plaintiff’s supervisor at the time
of her injury indicates accommodations had to be made for the
Plaintiff and she likely would not physically qualify for the
position if she applied today, and that her treating physician
regarding the ankle fracture would have to sign off on her ability
to perform the physical job requirements listed. A new
supervisor took over the daycare center six months prior to the
Plaintiff’s dismissal and concurred with the previous supervisor’s
assessment about physically qualifying for the job and requiring
the orthopaedic surgeon to sign off on the Plaintiff’s ability to do
the job. The treating orthopaedic physician does not recommend
that she undertake the physical requirements involved in the
daycare center job. The new supervisor dismissed the Plaintiff
six months after she took over the daycare center because of the
Plaintiff’s alleged abuse of a four year old child. The daycare
center supervisor is the only alleged witness to this act, which
she has difficulty explaining, how it qualified as “abuse,” and the
Department of Children and Family Services in Florida found the
allegations to be “unfounded.” Evidence will be presented at
trial that the supervisor dismissed the Plaintiff as an act of
retribution for conflicts the two had prior to the supervisor’s
promotion to manager of the facility and because she did not
want to make accommodations for the Plaintiff’s physical
limitations on the job site any longer.
Plaintiff has a high school education only. She had some
additional training through her job of 13 years at the daycare
center to handle preschool classes, but no further post-
secondary education.
Following her dismissal from the daycare center, it took the
Plaintiff nine months to find any employment because of her
educational limitations and the physical limitations in her ankle.
These physical limitations are impossible to cloak as she walks
with an obvious limp. She had to relocate 150 miles in order to
follow her husband in a new job setting and eventually obtained
a job working in a road-side fruit stand in Florida without air
conditioning. Accommodations are also being made for her at
the fruit stand, and her supervisors have testified that she does
not meet the physical requirements of the job even though she
has tried hard to do the best she can. The supervisors are
willing to allow her to stay in her present job’s position with the
accommodations they have made for her in the outside fruit
stand, with no opportunity for advancement, and an
acknowledgment that a higher ranking supervisor within the
company may require the Plaintiff to leave the position in the
future because she cannot physically perform all of the
requirements of the job. The Plaintiff has worked at the fruit
stand for the last ten (10) months. Plaintiff made $9.25 per hour
at 40 hours per week at the daycare center, and makes $7.00
per hour at 40 hours per week at the fruit stand.
A vocational rehabilitation expert will give testimony that
Plaintiff has little aptitude to be retrained in any line of work that
would pay her more than she is presently earning at the fruit
stand. She can be retrained to do some menial clerical type of
work, but would have been best suited to be involved in jobs
where she could rely on her physical capabilities given her
educational background and aptitude. An economist will also
review the earnings and earning potential to verify the economic
losses attributed to the injuries.
The claimed economic losses of the Plaintiff are as
follows:
PastMedical Expenses: $ 32,753.00
Cost of Future Surgery: $ 25,000.00
Future Orthopaedic Care related to ankle
fusion for remainder of Plaintiff’s
life $ 5,000.00
Lost Earnings - 18 wks post-accident: $ 5,994.00
Lost Earnings - 37 wks between daycare
center and fruit stand positions: $ 14,430.00
Lost Earning Capacity since 7/1/02 for
employment at fruit stand ($9.25/hr.
less $7.00/hr. X 40 hours per
week) $ 3,690.00
Lost Earning Capacity based upon
Vocational rehabilitation and
Economist opinions $ 175,000.00
TotalPast &Future Economic Losses $ 261,867.00
The Defendant will claim that the lost income since the
Plaintiff’s position at the daycare facility is due to her abuse of
the child and has no relationship to the injuries. The Defendants
will also claim that the reduction in her pay rate has to do with
that dismissal and beginning a new position which takes time to
accrue similar pay raises. Defendants appear as though they will
claim that Plaintiff has no loss of earning capacity as a result of
her injuries.
Plaintiff has problems with all activities of daily living that
require walking or standing for any length of time. She is limited
in the amount of physical activities that she can do because of
the amount of pain she incurs in the leg and hip area builds
throughout the day in association with the amount of activity she
is undertaking. In addition to the problems with walking and
standing, she has great difficulty with kneeling, crouching,
squatting, or changes in the weather which affect the joint.
Plaintiff’s husband has had to become involved in many of the
household duties that the Plaintiff undertook on her own prior to
the injuries because she is unable to do some of these tasks
physically, or she is unable to do these tasks in addition to trying
to work full-time in the jobs she has tried to qualify for since the
accident. These duties include cooking, cleaning the house,
involvement in laundry and other household chores that the
Plaintiff handled on her own prior to the injury. The economic
ramifications of the injury have created a great deal of stress in
the Plaintiffs’ marriage, because the Plaintiffs’ husband also lost
his job immediately following the accident because he had to
care for her on a full-time basis for approximately four weeks,
and his employer would not give him a leave of absence.
Plaintiff believes that an amputation of a foot has a value
of at least one million dollars in terms of pain, suffering, loss of
enjoyment of life, etc. As outlined above, Plaintiff’s impairment
is 56% of the impairment associated with amputation of the foot
at the ankle. Therefore, Plaintiff believes that her pain and
suffering award should be at least $560,000. In addition, she
seeks the economic losses detailed and $50,000 for her
husband’s loss of consortium and services as a result of the
injuries to his wife.
What is your opinion?
Offline 
Send Email