MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE. $______ RECOVERY REACHED DURING TRIAL

• Pages: 16-17

The defendant negated that any symptoms were re-

lated to the collision, and that the plaintiff met the

verbal threshold. The plaintiff maintained that since it

was undisputed that the accident had occurred, it

was clear that he did not realize that a cervical injury

could result in pain that radiated to the hand and

that when he rebuffed a recent accident, he be-

lieved he was referring to a trauma that could ac-

count for his hand symptoms.

The plaintiff argued that this factor enhanced the

plaintiff’s credibility, and further pointed out that a

subsequent EMG was positive.

There was no evidence that surgery is indicated.

The plaintiff made an offer for judgment of $70,000.

The jury awarded $162,500. Since the verdict was suf-

ficiently high to trigger the Offer for Judgment sanc-

tions, the amount of the judgment was $202,488. The

case settled for $195,000.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s chiropractor expert: Gray, DC. Plaintiff’s

orthiopedic hand surgeon expert: Robert Lombardi,

MD from Edison, NJ. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon

expert: James Patti, MD from Edison, NJ. Plaintiff’s

orthopedic surgeon expert: Michael Wujciak MD from

Nutley, NJ. Defendant’s orthopedic surgeon expert:

Richard Sacks, MD from Toms River, NJ.

Bachefski vs. Kataffi. Docket no. OCN-L-002244 12;

Judge Craig Wellerson, 06-14.

Attorney for plaintiff: Stephen F. Lombardi of

Lombardi & Lombardi in Edison, NJ.

$500,000 VERDICT

Motor Vehicle Negligence –Rear end collision –

Cervical herniations and lumbar bulges –

Extensive chiropractic care –Injections –Plaintiff

homemaker makes no income claims –Damages

only –Expedited trial –High/low agreement

Somerset County, NJ

Liability was stipulated in this rear end collision

case, and the parties agreed to an expedited trial

with an undisclosed high/low agreement.

The 52-year-old plaintiff driver contended that the im-

pact was very substantial, and that shortly after the

collision, she developed both cervical and lumbar

pain and weakness.

The plaintiff maintained that several cervical

herniations and lumbar bulges were caused by the

accident, and confirmed by MRI. She further con-

tended that despite some 400 chiropractic visits, two

cervical injections, and one lumbar injection, she will

suffer permanent symptoms. There was no evidence

that surgery will be necessary.

The defendant contended that the impact was very

minor, involved only a “tap,” and denied that the

plaintiff met the verbal threshold. The defendant

maintained that the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle

was limited to a liner scratch across the bumper, and

no other outside visible damage. The plaintiff had the

car taken to a body shop. The bumper was pulled

off, and the plaintiff maintained that photographs of

the area behind the bumper showed damage to the

metal frame that was consistent with the plaintiff’s tes-

timony that it was a hard impact. The plaintiff – who

didnotworkoutsideofthehomeatthetimeofthe

collision – made no income claims.

The jury awarded $500,000.

REFERENCE

Boylan vs. Barish.; Judge Thomas C. Miller, 03-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: Christian C. LoPiano of LoPiano

Kenny & Stinson in Hoboken, NJ.

$82,500 RECOVERY REACHED DURING TRIAL

Motor Vehicle Negligence –Rear end collision –

Cervical herniation and aggravation of previously

asymptomatic lumbar degenerative disc disease –

Recommendation for cervical fusion surgery –

Damages only

Burlington County, NJ

Liability was stipulated in this rear end collision

case. The plaintiff, in her mid-50s, contended that

she sustained a cervical herniation, and an

aggravation of previously asymptomatic

degenerative disc disease.

The plaintiff’s neurosurgeon maintained that a two-

level fusion is indicated in the cervical area, and the

plaintiff indicated that she is contemplating undergo-

ing the surgery.

The defendant denied that the collision caused the

claimed injuries, and supported that the plaintiff was

suffering the natural progression of degenerative disc

disease only. The defendant’s biomechanical engi-

neer contended that the plaintiff was not subjected

to greater G- forces than she would be from normal

day-to-day activities, such as jogging or sitting in a

chair quickly.

16 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Volume 35, Issue 10, March 2015 Subscribe Now