Litchfield County Attorneys Secure $250,000 for Client Injured in Car Crash
John Gilson reaggravated his lumbar and cervical spine following a 2016 car accident in which his vehicle was rear-ended. His attorneys recently settled the case for $250,000.
October 16, 2019 at 12:56 PM
4 minute read
Attorneys for a 63-year-old Canton man who reaggravated his lumbar and cervical spine following a May 2016 rear-end collision have secured a $250,000 settlement.
Plaintiff attorneys J. Paul Vance Jr. and John Logan, both of Torrington, Connecticut-based Logan & Mencuccini, settled the case Friday following four months of mediation with opposing counsel, according to Vance. Jury selection was scheduled for this Friday, Vance said.
According to Vance and the Oct. 4 amended complaint, plaintiff John Gilson was driving his 2000 Honda Accord S and heading to a meeting for his job at the Simsbury Board of Education when his vehicle was rear-ended. Jean McKeon, according to the complaint, "suddenly and without warning" hit Gilson's vehicle as he planned to turn into the driveway of the Board of Education building. McKeon was issued an infraction for following too closely.
Vance told the Connecticut Law Tribune Wednesday the crash's impact was so severe that "the brackets on my client's seat were broken off the hinges."
The impact for Gilson, who was a custodian for the school district, further aggravated, among other things, his spinal stenosis, which is the narrowing of the spinal canal, Vance said,
In addition, Vance said, both of Gilson's feet were radiating from the pain in his back.
The defense's attorney, Stephen Sobin of Brown Paindiris & Scott, argued Gilson's injuries weren't related to the car accident, Vance said.
"He had some preexisting lumbar spine issues and this collision really lit up those prior issues," Vance said. "The defense argued that it was not related to the accident. We were prepared to have neurosurgeon John Strugar testify on my client's behalf that the force of the collision required Gilson to seek injection therapy and that he'll likely need a future fusion surgery."
Sobin told the Connecticut Law Tribune that the defense settled because "it was a significant hit based on the property damage photographs and the photos would not have played well in front of a jury. There was also potential exposure for a quite invasive surgery to the lumbar spine based on the plaintiff's expert review."
Vance said both sides agreed on many issues, but—in addition to disagreements on whether the injuries were preexisting—there were also strong difference on what Gilson's permanent partial disability rating should be.
"The defense was going to have Hartford orthopedic Dr. Pietro Memmo testify that the medical treatment to date was reasonable and necessary, but that he did not believe Gilson would need future surgery," Vance said. "He also thought the permanent partial disability prescribed by Dr. Strugar of 25%t was too high."
Vance said his initial offer of compromise was $450,000 and the defense's first offer was of $90,000. In the end and with the help of Superior Court Judge John Moore, both sides settled on $250,000, Vance said.
"I think the settlement is fair for what happened to my client," Vance said. "One of the damage claims was that he was forced to retire before he was ready." Vance said Gilson worked for about one year following the accident but retired "because the pain was just too much."
Today, Vance said, Gilson undergoes injection therapy for his spine every three to six months "and that provides him with some relief. The injections keep the pain at bay."
In addition to questioning whether the injuries to Gilson were preexisting, the defense, in court papers, also put the blame for the accident on Gilson. The defense argued that Gilson's "negligence and carelessness" caused the accident in that he "suddenly and without warning brought his vehicle to a stop on the roadway; and/or in that he operated the vehicle with defective brake lights."
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllArt of the Settlement: Trump Attorney Reveals Strategy in ABC Lawsuit
Attorney Overcomes Low Medical Bills, Captures $1 Million Policy Limit
2 minute readConn. Appeals Court Slices $150 Million in Statutory Damages From Judgment Owed by Alex Jones
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 2Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 3Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 4Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 5People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250