$______ VERDICT - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - MULTIPLE-VEHICLE REAR END COLLISION - AGGRAVATION OF PRIOR NECK AND LOW BACK INJURY - SPINAL FUSION SURGERY.

• Pages: 5-5

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 5

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Maricelly Lopez as Personal Representative of The Estate

of Omar Mieles and in her Individual Capacity as the

Mother of Omar Mieles vs. City of North Miami, a Political

Subdivisionof the State of Florida, et al. Case no. 07-

46073 CA 25; Judge Peter Adrien, 03-19-10.

Attorney for plaintiff Lopez: Mitchell Panter of Panter,

Panter & Sampedro, P.A. in Miami, FL. Attorney for

defendant City of North Miami: Cynthia Everett in

Miami, FL.

COMMENTARY

It is interesting note that despite a vigorous seat belt defense

raised by the City of North Miami, the jury nonetheless chose not to

find contributory negligence on the part of the decedent for failing

to wear his seat belt. Of particular effect in this regard was the tes-

timony of the medical examiner, a neutral, knowledgeable party,

that the decedent more likely then not would have sustained life-

threatening and likely fatal injuries regardless of whether or not

he was wearing his seat belt. This opinion was buttressed by the

photographic evidence depicting severe damage to the decedent’s

vehicle right in the area where he was sitting. This evidence estab-

lished the severity of the collision right in the area of the vehicle

where the decedent was sitting, indicating that the decedent would

have sustained life-threatening and likely fatal injuries regardless

of whether or not he was wearing his seat belt. With this testimony,

plaintiff’s counsel was able to successfully argue that the decedent’s

failure to wear his seat belt was not a proximate cause of his

untimely death.

Another significant aspect of this case can be found in the size of

this award for the wrongful death of an unmarried, childless,

youthful decedent with no dependents. The jury was probably influ-

enced in rendering such a significant award by the evidence estab-

lishing that he was working two jobs and was about to enter

college, along with the testimony of his surviving family members

that he was a caring and contributing young adult with significant

potential to live out the “American Dream” were not for the fatal

mistake of the defendant’s police officer.

$0 VERDICT – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – MULTIPLE-VEHICLE REAR END

COLLISION – AGGRAVATION OF PRIOR NECK AND LOW BACK INJURY – SPINAL

FUSION SURGERY.

Palm Beach County, FL

In this motor vehicle negligence action, the

plaintiff, a tool and dye maker in his early 40s,

was operating the first of three vehicles involved

in a rear end chain reaction collision. The plaintiff

brought suit against both defendant drivers. Each

defendant blamed the other.

The plaintiff sustained an aggravation of a prior neck

and low back injury, ultimately requiring three-level neck

fusion surgery. The plaintiff missed time from work after

the accident, as well as time for the surgery. He made a

claim for lost earning capacity.

At trial, the plaintiff called an expert surgeon who testi-

fied that the plaintiff’s surgery was necessary and related

to the accident. The plaintiff also presented a liability ex-

pert who testified that the subject accident was caused

by both defendant drivers. Lastly, the plaintiff called an

expert radiologist who testified that the plaintiff’s MRI find-

ings were related to the subject accident and indicated

an injured neck.

The defendants each claimed that the other caused

the initial collision that led to the chain reaction. The de-

fendants each called a liability expert who testified that

the other driver caused the accident. The first defendant

also had a radiology expert who testified that nothing on

the plaintiff’s MRI was related to the subject accident.

The first defendant also called an orthopedic expert

who testified that the plaintiff’s surgery was not related to

accident. The second defendant also presented an or-

thopedic specialist who testified that the plaintiff sus-

tained an aggravation of his condition, but that the

surgery he underwent was not related to the subject

accident.

The jury found both defendants liable for the accident,

but determined that the plaintiff suffered no injury in the

accident and awarded no damages.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s liability expert: Martin Garcia. Plaintiff’s

radiologist expert: Theresa Cortinas. Plaintiff’s

surgeon expert: Alexander Lenard. Defendant’s

orthopedic surgeon expert: Alphonso Petti.

Defendant’s orthopedic surgeon expert: Micheal

Zeide. Defendant’s radiology expert: Peter

Livingston.

Boyd Lenkersdorf vs. Michael Sorrentiono and Leila

Clarke. Case no. 502005CA004986; Judge David Crow,

10-15-09.

Attorney for plaintiff: Bill Bone of Larmoyeux & Bone

PL in West Palm Beach, FL.

COMMENTARY

This case was unusual in that the jury found no loss, injury or dam-

age. The case is currently on appeal based on a question the jury

asked on the second day of deliberation. The jury requested clarifi-

cation of the difference between an aggravation and a new injury.

The judge gave no explanation of the difference. The plaintiff had

claimed an aggravation of the preexisting condition which is a clas-

sic cause of action for damages. The plaintiff filed an appeal, as-

serting that the jury could not find negligence and fail to award

damages.