$______ RECOVERY - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - STATE LIABILITY - AUTO/ PEDESTRIAN COLLISION - MINOR PLAINTIFF CROSSING 6-LANE ROAD WITH FATHER STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER - DISPLACED AND NON-DISPLACED FRACTURES OF FEMUR AND HUMERUS - CONCUSSION - CONTUSIONS AND ABRASIONS - SIGNIFICANT SCARRING - SURGICAL INTERVENTION WITH PLATES AND RODS.

• Pages: 2-4

FEATURED CASES

$1,125,000 RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – REAR END COLLISION –

CERVICAL HERNIATION AND SEVERE CORD COMPRESSION – 3-LEVEL FUSION –

LIMITED PRIOR EARNINGS.

Union County, NJ

This motor vehicle negligence case involved a 60-

year-old plaintiff driver who was stopped at a

yield sign waiting to enter Route 22 West in

Mountainside when he was struck from behind.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed

to keep a proper following distance. The plaintiff

asserted that as a result of the accident, he

developed unrelenting neck pain with radiating,

shooting pain and numbness into his left hand.

The plaintiff maintained that he suffered

herniated discs at C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7 with

resulting cord compression. The defendant

maintained that the accident did not cause

herniations, and that the plaintiff’s cervical

complaints were attributable to pre-existing

degenerative disease.

The plaintiff underwent conservative care, which in-

cluded physical therapy, injections, acupuncture and

chiropractic care. This conservative care provided

short-term relief only and the plaintiff then underwent

a 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at

C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7. The defendant produced a

biomechanical expert who opined that the forces

suffered by Plaintiff were insufficient to cause the inju-

ries complained of. The plaintiff countered that he

had no prior symptoms or complaints and main-

tained that the defendant’s position of degenerative

disc disease should be rejected.

The plaintiff asserted that while his radiating, tingling

and numbing sensations had subsided since the sur-

gery, he still experienced intermittent pain and loss of

range of motion. The plaintiff contended that these

symptoms will continue permanently.

The defendant had $500,000 in primary coverage

and a $5,000,000 umbrella. The case settled prior to

trial for $1,125,000.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s biomechanical expert: Steven C. Batterman,

Ph.D. from Cherry Hill, NJ. Plaintiff’s life care

planning expert: Linda Lajterman, RN, CCM from

Stockholm, NJ. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert:

Gregory Charko, M.D. from Union, NJ.

Sillecchia vs. Wyman. Docket no. UNN-L-3399-18, 05-

16-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Raymond A. Gill, III of Gill &

Chamas in Woodbridge, NJ.

COMMENTARY

The defendant denied that the impact damage was sufficient to cause

the claimed injuries and claimed that the plaintiff suffered degenera-

tive disc disease only. The plaintiff, who overcame this factor, stressed

that he had no prior symptoms or treatment that would account for

the difficulties, and argued that the need for the surgery was clearly

the collision. It should be noted that the plaintiff’s history reflected

very limited earnings and the recovery primarily reflected the need

for surgery and intermittent pain and loss of range of motion.

$90,000 RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – STATE LIABILITY – AUTO/

PEDESTRIAN COLLISION – MINOR PLAINTIFF CROSSING 6-LANE ROAD WITH FATHER

STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER – DISPLACED AND NON-DISPLACED FRACTURES OF

FEMUR AND HUMERUS – CONCUSSION – CONTUSIONS AND ABRASIONS –

SIGNIFICANT SCARRING – SURGICAL INTERVENTION WITH PLATES AND RODS.

Camden County, NJ

In this motor vehicle negligence case, the minor

plaintiff, an 8-year-old boy, asserted that the

defendant driver negligently passed a vehicle that

had stopped to allow the plaintiff to cross the

road and struck the plaintiff in the roadway,

leaving him permanently injured. As a result, the

plaintiff sustained displaced and non-displaced

fractures of the femur and humerus; concussion;

contusions; and abrasions. The plaintiff

underwent surgery with placement of pins and

rods and was left with significant scarring. The

plaintiff brought suit against the defendant State,

which owned and controlled the intersection, for

negligent design and the defendant driver for

negligently failing to observe and allow the

plaintiff pedestrian to safely cross the road. The

defendant driver denied liability asserting that the

2

Volume 43, Issue 3, August 2022

Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

Subscribe Now