Recently, a Lehigh County jury found in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff after a trial before Judge Brian Johnson. Negligence was admitted in the rear-end accident. However, the jury found that the negligence of the Forry Ullman client was not a factual cause of any harm to the plaintiff and awarded nothing. Plaintiff initially had demanded $90,000, and the demand was $40,000 before trial. Defendant offered $16,000.
The evidence showed moderate damage to the Plaintiff’s car. The medical treatment included chiropractic care, an MRI which showed protrusions at multiple cervical levels, an EMG, and three cervical injections by plaintiff’s medical expert, a board certified neurologist. Plaintiff also testified that neck pain had become worse since the accident, and due to his difficulties, plaintiff intends to proceed with a surgery that had been recommended.
Plaintiff’s neurologist testified that the EMG of plaintiff which showed nerve damage. He opined that all of plaintiff’s injuries, including the specific findings on the EMG which indicated left moderate C5 radiculopathy, were the direct result of the accident. Further, it was his opinion that plaintiff would need future medical treatment including medication at a cost of $1,500, physical therapy at $2,500, and a $60,000 neck surgery in the near future. Clearly the Jury did not consider this testimony compelling.
The defense called a board certified radiologist who opined that based upon his review of plaintiff’s cervical imaging studies that he could find no abnormalities or acute findings related to the accident. His testimony expressly contradicted the testimony of plaintiff’s medical expert. However, the defense expert used video assistance of the imaging studies as he testified regarding his findings which greatly assisted the jury in visualizing the testimony.
Questions regarding this verdict can be directed to Paul Gambone.
