INSURANCE OBLIGATION. $______ PIP ARBITRATION AWARD

• Pages: 12-12

The parties submitted to non-binding arbitration prior

to trial. The arbitrator assigned 100% liability to the

defendants with damages of $56,900. Following arbi-

tration and prior to trial, the parties settled for

$60,000.

REFERENCE

Maltzman vs. Biss. Docket no. L-001730-18; Judge Mi-

chael V. Cresitello, Jr., 01-21-20.

Attorney for plaintiff: Erin M. Kolodziejczyk of

Levinson Axelrod, P.A. in Edison, NJ. Attorney for

defendant: Paul Mancuso of Law Office of Debra

Hart in Wall, NJ.

INSURANCE OBLIGATION

$324,261 PIP ARBITRATION AWARD

Insurance obligation – Insurance company

contends extension of disc surgery initially

performed 18 years earlier was not medically

necessary or related to subject collision.

Morris County, NJ

This case involved a plaintiff driver, in her 30s,

who after the rear end collision, underwent a

cervical fusion at an adjacent cervical level that

was fused 18 years earlier. She had made a full

recovery in the interim. The plaintiff maintained

that the need for surgery and follow-up care

stemmed from the collision and sought $324,261

from the PIP carrier. The carrier denied that the

treatment was medically necessary or causally

related to the collision and the case was

submitted for PIP arbitration.

The carrier’s orthopedist maintained that the films

showed significant signs of degeneration and

needed no further treatment. The plaintiff’s orthope-

dist spinal surgeon asserted that the plaintiff had

been faring well until the collision occurred and that it

was clear that the trauma was causally related and

that the treatment was necessary.

The arbitrator found for the plaintiff and awarded the

amount claimed of $324,261.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert: Kenneth Rieger,

M.D. from Chatham, NJ. Defendant’s orthopedist

expert: Jason Baynes, M.D. from Englewood, NJ.

NJ Spine Center vs. GEICO. 03-24-20.

Attorney for plaintiff: Camilla T. Morch of Camilla T.

Morch, LLC in Stirling, NJ.

MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE

Auto/Bicycle Collision

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT ON LIABILITY

Motor vehicle negligence – Auto/bicycle collision –

Plaintiff bicyclist collides with drivers’ side of

defendant’s vehicle as defendant is backing out of

driveway – Soft tissue lumbar injuries – No verbal

threshold.

Salem County, NJ

In this action for motor vehicle negligence, the

plaintiff bicyclist, in his 60s, contended that the

defendant driver negligently failed to make

adequate observations as she backed out of her

driveway. The plaintiff asserted that as a result,

he rode into the driver’s side of the defendant’s

car sustaining injuries. The defendant denied that

she was negligent and contended that the cause

of the accident was the negligence of the plaintiff.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was riding

against traffic rather than on the right side as re-

quired. The accident occurred during a rainy night

and the defendant also pointed out that the plaintiff

did not have a light on his bike.

The plaintiff did not have a drivers’ license and the

verbal threshold did not apply. The plaintiff con-

tended that he suffered severe soft tissue lumbar inju-

ries which will cause permanent pain and restriction.

The defendant asserted that the soft tissue injuries fully

resolved.

The jury found that the defendant was not negligent.

The case was tried via Zoom and the physicians testi-

fied on video.

12

Volume 43, Issue 1, June, 2022 Subscribe Now