News

Paul Gambone recently obtained a favorable result for a client after a two-day jury trial in Lehigh County before The Honorable Zachary Cohen. The case resulted from a rear end collision and the negligence of the defendant was not an issue.

The plaintiff and his medical expert David Weiss, D.O., alleged that the car accident aggravated preexisting lumbar degenerative disc disease which required the plaintiff to undergo a lumbar spinal fusion after the accident and also an operation for his right foot.

The defense medical expert, Mark Manzione, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and Mr. Gambone disputed these claims and argued that plaintiff only sustained a lumbar sprain and strain and nerve root injury. The need for surgery was caused by a natural progression of his preexisting issues which had forced him to undergo two spinal fusions prior to the accident.

Mr. Gambone also argued that the accident did not cause any injury to the foot, but the need for surgery was caused by plaintiff’s rheumatoid arthritis.

Prior to trial, the Plaintiff demanded the policy limits of $100,000 and believed the case was worth significantly more. An offer of $40,000 was made, but the offer was summarily rejected.

The jury, after several hours of deliberations, awarded the plaintiff $12,500. Plaintiff did not file an appeal.

Questions regarding this matter can be directed to Paul S. Gambone.

View Profile

Paul S. Gambone

Office: King of Prussia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: pgambone@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation, General Liability, Third Party,
Products Liability

Paul Gambone recently litigated an appellate win before the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme Courts. After a favorable result in the Superior Court, the Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal. The defense verdict by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County jury was affirmed.

On March 8, 2022, Paul obtained a defense verdict before Judge Paula A. Roscioli for a May 13, 2016, motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleged significant injuries which caused her to undergo treatments including steroid injections and a neck surgery. She also alleged that she would need future surgeries related to the accident.

Plaintiff alleged that while stopped for a red light at the intersection of 25th and William Penn Highway in Northampton County, she was rear ended by the defendant’s vehicle. While defendant’s vehicle had bumped plaintiff’s vehicle, negligence was not admitted. Plaintiff testified that her vehicle sustained a heavy impact which propelled it forward. The defendant testified that in the moment prior to the contact she brought her vehicle to a full stop behind the plaintiff’s vehicle for the red light. However, while in the process of turning to deal with her child in the rear seat, her foot came off the brake thus allowing her vehicle to “bump” the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant denied a heavy impact. She also denied any damage to her vehicle or the plaintiff’s vehicle.

During her testimony, plaintiff testified as to her treatment and how the accident “dramatically changed her life.” On cross-examination, Paul obtained testimony of gaps in complaints and treatment. She was confronted with a timeline of her complaints and had no cervical complaints for four years and no treatment whatsoever in 2017. She also agreed that many of her limitations began years after the accident. She reluctantly acknowledged prior neck issues dating back to the 1990s and leading up to the accident. She was confirmed that she took her passenger to the ER from the accident but did not seek any treatment for herself at the ER while waiting for him.

Plaintiff’s medical expert, an orthopedic surgeon, had performed neck surgery which included the implantation of hardware in December 2020. He testified that plaintiff had suffered significant injuries from the accident which had aggravated her pre-existing cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease. However, during cross examination, the doctor admitted that there were several gaps in the reporting plaintiff’s cervical complaints. Plaintiff initially complained of neck pain and back pain from May 2016 to December 2016. Plaintiff then underwent two rounds of lumbar injections in 2016. However, she did not complain again of neck pain again until November 2020. The doctor attempted to explain the lack of complaints by stating that plaintiff had suffered aggravation of myelopathy which he termed the “silent killer”. He further testified that plaintiff would need another neck surgery in the future if symptoms persisted, and that she was likely to undergo a lumbar fusion in the future too. Also, Plaintiff’s future care expert testified that the plaintiff’s future medical expenses could be between $388,537.00 to $413,540 for future treatment in the form of future medical visits, epidural steroid injections, and surgeries. The Jury did not find these experts compelling.

The defense presented the video testimony of a board-certified neuroradiologist who had reviewed the MRI films. He testified that plaintiff’s spinal issues were degenerative and there was no aggravation based upon his review of the films.

Plaintiff had demanded $250,000 prior to trial. The highest offer was $7,500. The Jury awarded $0.

View Profile

Paul S. Gambone

Office: King of Prussia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: pgambone@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation, General Liability, Third Party,
Products Liability

Amy N. Gampico is an Associate Attorney with the firm. In the past, Amy has represented major healthcare systems, hospitals and healthcare providers in the Philadelphia area. She has also served as trial counsel for a national insurance company and worked in the private sector representing insureds in both minor and catastrophic cases for many years. Amy has served as an Arbitrator for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas-Arbitration Division in the past. She currently practices insurance defense litigation concentrating her practice on automobile/third party liability, premises liability and construction litigation matters.

View Profile

Amy N. Gampico

Office: King of Prussia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: agampico@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: General Liability, Motor Vehicle Liability, Premises Liability, Professional Liability, Construction Litigation

Recently, before the Honorable Benjamin Nevius of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Pennsylvania, Paul Gambone obtained a defense verdict on behalf of his client. After 3 ½ hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant by finding no factual cause between the motor vehicle accident and plaintiff’s’ allegations of damages. The primary issues for the jury were plaintiff’s injury allegations and future medical expenses.

Plaintiff alleged that the car accident aggravated pre-existing degenerative issues in his left shoulder which required him to undergo arthroscopic surgery with debridement synovectomy one year after the accident. There were also numerous pain injections into his shoulder. Plaintiff’s medical expert was the orthopedic surgeon who performed the surgery. The doctor testified that all of plaintiff injuries and treatment, including the surgery and injections, were causally related to the accident involving the defendant. Additionally, the doctor testified that it was likely that the plaintiff would need to undergo further treatment in the future which could include pain injections, rotor cuff repair, and shoulder replacement surgery. Plaintiff’s life care planner testified that the costs of the future injections would be $11,000, the rotator cuff surgery would be $130,000, and shoulder replacement surgery would be $150,000.

Plaintiff admitted that he had previous problems with his left shoulder which had required two prior surgical procedures, but he testified that he had been pain free a year prior to the accident. Plaintiff also testified that it was very likely to undergo the shoulder surgery recommended by his surgeon in the next year due to the daily pain he was now experiencing.

The defense presented an orthopedic surgeon who examined the plaintiff. It was his opinion that if plaintiff had suffered any injury from the accident, it was only a sprain and strain of his left shoulder which had resolved. He disputed the opinion of plaintiff’s medical expert that plaintiff required any further treatment including surgery as a result of the accident.

Prior to the trial, the settlement demand was defendant’s bodily injury policy limits of $100,000. The settlement offer was $17,000.

Post Trial motions were not filed.

Questions regarding this matter can be directed to Paul S. Gambone.

View Profile

Paul S. Gambone

Office: King of Prussia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: pgambone@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation, General Liability, Third Party,
Products Liability

Sean Buggy obtained a very favorable jury verdict in Northampton County, Pennsylvania.  Liability was not disputed in this rear impact collision.  Plaintiff was limited tort.

Plaintiff testified that struck her head on the steering wheel and was bleeding from the mouth and nose.  She was taken by ambulance to the ER at St Luke’s Hospital for a headache, light sensitivity, nausea, and pain in the right ankle, shoulders, back and neck.  A few days later, Muhlenberg Lehigh Valley diagnosed a concussion.  Plaintiff treated extensively at the HAM Concussion Clinic.  Plaintiff testified she was out-of-work for six (6) months as a teaching assistant for the Bethlehem School District.  Plaintiff alleged a wage loss of $15,223.00.  Plaintiff alleged ongoing symptoms of headache and blurred vision.  Plaintiff testified to treatment with a Dr. Acevedo for the cervical spine who administered approximately 25 trigger point injections.  The injection therapy was ongoing.  Plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Robert Mauthe, opined that Plaintiff had sustained a concussion and that her condition was permanent.  Plaintiff’s adult son testified in support of his mother’s injuries and the impact on her daily activities.

Defendant’s medical expert, Dr. Richard Bennett, testified that plaintiff fully recovered from any injuries and she did not require further treatment, testing or restrictions.  Plaintiff was working full-time without restrictions.  Her neurological exam was normal.  There was no evidence of any concussion or post-concussion syndrome.  The expert testified that “if” plaintiff had sustained such a concussion, she had long since recovered.  Dr. Bennett was emphatic that there was absolutely no indication for trigger point injections which he described as excessive and totally unnecessary.   Further, Dr. Bennett testified that it can be extremely difficult to separate and distinguish between Plaintiff’s pre-existing migraine headaches and concussion symptoms.  A CT of the brain was normal.  Two MRI tests of the cervical spine were essentially normal and did not reveal any obvious trauma.  An EMG test of the cervical spine was normal.

Plaintiff’s demand was the policy limit of $100,000.00.  During the trial, the Judge recommended a settlement of $50,000.00. A settlement offer of $37,000.00 was repeatedly rejected.  The jury rendered a verdict of $10,130.00 for economic damages only.  The jury did not find that the plaintiff had a serious impact of a body function and therefore there was no award for pain and suffering.

Questions regarding this trial can be directed to Sean Buggy, Esquire.

View Profile

Sean P. Buggy

Office: King of Prussia, Philadelphia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: sbuggy@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Third Party, UM/UIM, Premises Liability, Products Liability,
Construction Litigation, Dram Shop/Liquor Liability, Appellate Practice, General Liability

Eric J. Appelbaum is an experienced civil litigator with more than twenty years of experience in the defense of clients in the areas of general liability, premises liability and motor vehicle litigation. Eric is a certified appointed arbitrator for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Eric is Bar certified in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1999) as well as the State of New Jersey (1998).

View Profile

Eric J. Appelbaum

Office: King of Prussia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: eappelbaum@forryullman.com
Practice Areas:General Liability, Premises Liability, Products Liability, Third Party, UM/UIM

On March 9, 2020, Paul Gambone obtained a favorable verdict after a two day trial before the Honorable Craig Dally of the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas.

The motor vehicle accident which was the subject of this lawsuit occurred after the defendant driver failed to stop his vehicle, and struck the rear of a non-party vehicle. As a result of this impact, the non-party then struck the plaintiffs’ vehicle. The defense conceded negligence and the damages to the Plaintiff-driver and Plaintiff-passenger were the only issues at trial.

Photos of all the vehicles, showing very minimal damage, were published to the jury.

Plaintiff-driver testified that she felt one medium impact to the rear of her vehicle. Her alleged injuries included a cervical strain which resolved after 6 months, exacerbation of underlying pre-existing spondylolisthesis of L5- S1, and left lumbar radiculopathy. She testified her treatment included physical therapy and lumbar injections. She admitted that she had a history of these same injuries and treatment from past accidents. Plaintiff-driver’s expert was Dr. Vito Loguidice, an orthopedic surgeon.

Mr. Gambone provided evidence of the opinions of Dr. Andrew Shaer, MD., a neuroradiologist, who reviewed plaintiff’s MRI imaging studies. It was his medical opinion that the MRI studies only showed evidence of pre-existing degenerative disc disease, and no evidence of any acute abnormalities.

The jury awarded the driver total damages of $1,532, which included unpaid medical expenses.

Plaintiff-passenger’s alleged injuries included sprain/strain of his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. However, his primary allegation of injuries involved an ulnar nerve injury, cubital tunnel syndrome, and aggravation of carpal tunnel syndrome. He underwent carpal tunnel surgery and cubital tunnel syndrome surgery on two separate dates. His scars as a result of the surgeries were shown to the jury.

A video of his medical expert, Dr. Scott Sexton, an orthopedic surgeon, was shown to the jury. Dr. Sexton testified that all the injuries alleged by the plaintiff, including the carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndrome and the resulting surgeries, were directly related to the motor vehicle accident. During cross-examination of the doctor, it was brought to the jury’s attention that there was no indication from the emergency room records or the medical records soon after the accident that plaintiff had complained of these ulnar nerve issues.

Defense medical expert Dr. Robert Grob examined the plaintiff-passenger as part of an Independent Medical Exam. He opined that plaintiff-passenger at most sustained a cervical lumbar sprain strain, and a contusion to his elbow as a result of the accident. It was his opinion that the surgery that plaintiff underwent was not the result of this accident because plaintiff had not made immediate complaints about it, and he disputed its mechanism of injury.

The jury awarded this plaintiff $6,670, which included unpaid medical expenses. Prior to trial, plaintiff had rejected a far greater settlement offer.

Questions regarding this case or the experts can be referred to Paul S. Gambone, Esquire.

View Profile

Paul S. Gambone

Office: King of Prussia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: pgambone@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation, General Liability, Third Party,
Products Liability

On February 13, 2020, after a 3 day jury trial before Judge James T. Anthony of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, Paul Gambone obtained a favorable verdict on behalf of a client after a jury awarded the plaintiff $13,900 which included unpaid medical expenses. Prior to trial, plaintiff rejected efforts to resolve the claim and demanded the policy limits of $100,000.

Plaintiff began her case with live testimony of Dr. Todd Chertow, an orthopedic surgeon.  He testified that plaintiff had sustained as a result of the car accident an aggravation of degenerative osteoarthritis of both knees which required plaintiff to undergo regular injections, and would eventually require her to undergo bilateral knee replacement surgery in the future.  In addition, he testified that plaintiff had sustained lumbar and cervical sprain and strain which would require injections in the future.

Plaintiff then presented the live testimony of her neuropsychologist, Dr. Renee Cantwell. Dr. Cantwell testified that plaintiff had sustained a mild traumatic brain injury based upon her airbag striking her face at the time of the impact. According to her, plaintiff had sustained cognitive defects which included memory problems and processing information as verified by her testing of the plaintiff.  In addition, she testified that plaintiff was now suffering with more depression and anxiety than before the accident.

Plaintiff finally presented the testimony of Mark Guillford, a data analyst, who testified that plaintiff would incur future medical expenses in the amount of $160,000 for the future knee surgeries and cervical/lumbar injections based upon his research of medical procedures in the Lehigh Valley.

During testimony of the plaintiff, she admitted that she had prior issues with her knees from 2003-2007, but testified that she had been asymptomatic from 2007 until the accident in 2016. Plaintiff admitted that since the accident, with the exception of being out of work for a period of time after the accident, she continued to seek and accept employment. All jobs she had after the accident were similar to jobs which she held prior to the accident. As recently as December 2019 until January 2020, plaintiff was working at a Walmart warehouse involved in restocking of merchandise.

After plaintiff rested, the defense presented the video testimony of defense medical expert, Dr. Kevin Anbari, an orthopedic surgeon with a specialty in knee surgery.  He conceded that plaintiff probably did sustain a contusion of her knees as a result of the impact.  However, he testified that based upon his review of her medical records, including records/diagnostic studies dating from 2003 to 2007, it was his opinion that she did not sustain any aggravation of her pre-existing osteoarthritis of her knees, but that her current complaints, injection treatment, and any possible future surgery only related to a natural progression of her osteoarthritis, and not the accident.  The treatment and allegations regarding the neuropsychological complaints were so scant and unsupported that the defense did not retain an expert in that field.

Questions regarding this case and the experts noted herein can be referred to Paul Gambone, Esquire.

View Profile

Paul S. Gambone

Office: King of Prussia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: pgambone@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation, General Liability, Third Party,
Products Liability

On June 6, 2019, after a 4 day trial before Judge Michele Varricchio of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, and despite a stipulation of liability and that Plaintiff did sustain a neck strain, a jury awarded zero damages.  Plaintiff allegedly suffered a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and a traumatic brain injury with permanent residuals.  Plaintiff boarded specials of approximately $1.35 million for future medical treatment, past wage loss and loss of future earning capacity.  Plaintiff rejected Defendant’s settlement offer of $100,000.00.  Plaintiff’s lowest settlement demand was $550,000.00.

As Defendant testified that he rear-ended Plaintiff at a speed of 25 mph, liability was not disputed.  Plaintiff did not complain of pain or injury at the scene.  Later that day, she presented to the ER with complaints of neck discomfort and headache.  Plaintiff was diagnosed with a neck strain and released.  A few days later, Plaintiff sought treatment with a chiropractor for neck pain and concussion-like symptoms.  Eight (8) days following the accident, Plaintiff returned to the ER and reported a wide range of complaints consistent with post-concussion syndrome.  Thereafter, Plaintiff treated extensively at the LVHN – Concussion & Head Trauma Program and with physical therapy, occupational therapy and vision therapy tailored for post-concussion symptoms.  Due to complaints of dizziness, memory loss, lack of focus, headaches, etc., Plaintiff was out-of-work from her position as a middle school, special education teacher for six (6) months.  Upon her return to work, Plaintiff was given accommodations, including, frequent breaks and working only 4 days per week.

Plaintiff’s two (2) experts, Dr. Brian Greenwald, MD, a brain injury specialist, and Dr. Richard Schuster, PhD, a vocational and medical cost expert, each opined that Plaintiff’s ongoing concussion symptoms were permanent and would prevent Plaintiff, who was only 33 years old, from continuing to work as a  teacher in the future.

Plaintiff also presented the testimony of 2 “injury witnesses,” Janice Oren and Tim Abell, who testified regarding their personal observations of Plaintiff’s post-accident behavior and concussion symptoms.  The defense stressed to the jury that these witnesses were close, personal friends who would be expected to provide Plaintiff with their testimony and support. 

The defense disputed the concussion/brain injury claims with the credible and persuasive testimony of Dr. Victor Malatesta, PhD, a neuropsychological expert.  In addition, the defense presented the testimony of Dr. Steven Gumerman, a vocational expert. 

View Profile

Sean P. Buggy

Office: King of Prussia, Philadelphia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: sbuggy@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Third Party, UM/UIM, Premises Liability, Products Liability,
Construction Litigation, Dram Shop/Liquor Liability, Appellate Practice, General Liability

Liability was not contested in this accident case. Defendant, who was not wearing her prescription glasses, had a stop sign and made a left turn initiating impact. Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have any traffic control device. Plaintiff’s lowest settlement demand in this rotator cuff surgery case was $170,000.00. Defendant’s settlement offer was $95,000.00 which noted a medical lien of $8,624.85. No other special damages were alleged. After a recent 3 day jury trial, a Lackawanna County jury awarded the Plaintiff $22,624.85.

The treatment records and testimony revealed that after physical therapy, conservative measures and injections failed, Plaintiff underwent a right shoulder rotator cuff repair. There was no evidence of any prior injury, treatment or discomfort in the right shoulder. Plaintiff was administered additional injections and underwent several further rounds of therapy post-surgery. Plaintiff’s expert, who also performed the surgery, opined that the rotator cuff tear was caused by the accident. On cross, he conceded that the tear was small. As reflected in his treatment records, Plaintiff admitted that his right shoulder was back to 90%. Pursuant to a Physical Capabilities form prepared at the request of Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff’s expert had released Plaintiff to lift with the right shoulder up to 20 lbs. on a frequent basis and, more importantly, up to 100 lbs. occasionally. The defense medical expert opined that the rotator cuff tear was degenerative and pre-existing.

Plaintiff retained a 2nd medical expert, addressing the cervical spine only, who opined that the accident caused 2 cervical disc hernations which were treated with three (3) injections and physical therapy. There was no evidence of any pre-existing neck condition, injury, treatment or complaints. The defense aggressively attacked the finding of the herniations. It was noted that the initial radiologist found mild disc protrusions, not herniations. The defense medical expert detailed the differences between protrusions and herniations. The defense medical expert identified pre-existing, age-related cervical protrusion that were not caused by trauma. Further, there was another treating physician who also described the cervical MRI as revealing only protrusions.

It was clear that the primary injuries were to the right shoulder and the neck. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that Plaintiff sustained a serious left shoulder injury. This argument was belied by Plaintiff’s own expert who testified that left shoulder injury was only a minor sprain. Moreover, Dr. Tracy testified that the left shoulder complaints had resolved, for the most part.

Throughout the trial, the jury was reminded that the impact was mild. Furthermore, photographic evidence demonstrated only scratches and minimal damage to Plaintiff’s passenger side hubcap.

View Profile

Sean P. Buggy

Office: King of Prussia, Philadelphia
Phone: (610) 977-2975
Email: sbuggy@forryullman.com
Practice Areas: Third Party, UM/UIM, Premises Liability, Products Liability,
Construction Litigation, Dram Shop/Liquor Liability, Appellate Practice, General Liability