No Medical Support in Personal Injury Case? New Haven Lawyer Still Wins $550,000
New Haven attorney Mohan Sreenivasan helped secure a $550,000 jury verdict for a couple in a car crash, despite no treating doctors testifying on their behalf.
February 18, 2020 at 12:21 PM
4 minute read
Faced with the unusual prospect of having no testimony from treating doctors, and no proof of medical bills in a jury trial in a motor vehicle tort case, plaintiff attorney Mohan Sreenivasan had his work cut out for him.
The New Haven attorney took over representing plaintiffs Daniel Scinto and Jennifer Lestrange on the day of jury selection. He concedes it was a gamble, because no treating medical doctor would testify on the couple's behalf, an obstacle Sreenivasan overcame to secure $550,000 for his clients.
This left the attorney to devise a litigation strategy hinged on noneconomic damages, as bankruptcy loomed for his clients. The verdict was lower than what the couple had sought, but it surpassed all the medical expenses, which the plaintiff alleged, without support from doctors.
Plaintiffs Scinto and Lestrange sued defendant Frank Rogers, alleging he'd T-boned their Nissan station wagon as the couple was driving in Orange in 2016, headed toward their retirement home in South Carolina.
Scinto, who was driving, claims the collision worsened his heart condition, resulting in a surgical procedure. And Lestrange, the passenger, was claiming injuries to her nose, and trauma to her face.
But the treating physicians, most in South Carolina, did not believe the crash had caused the injuries to either plaintiff, according to Sreenivasan, co-owner of New Haven-based Calabrese + Sreenivasan.
"No doctor wanted to talk about causation," the attorney said.
|'I gambled'
The treating doctors didn't testify, because they believed there was no connection between Scinto's heart condition and the traffic collision. And as for Lestrange, who'd had prior surgery, physicians said that "the science supported that the nose surgery was a result of a naturally occurring condition," Sreenivasan said.
In addition, the doctors refused to release their medical costs to Sreenivasan, meaning the jury had to take the attorney at his word that the couple's medical costs were about $400,000.
So, what was Sreenivasan's defense for his clients?
"I gambled," the attorney told the Connecticut Law Tribune. "I raised the issue of Mr. Scinto going into bankruptcy as a consequence of him not being able to work, and being overwhelmed."
Sreenivasan continued: "I raised the bankruptcy issue in front of the jury, saying this accident profoundly changed the couple's life. I told the court to remove the jury instructions for economic damages, and did not present a single medical bill. We gave the jury a case on noneconomic damages. I also told the jury that Mr. Scinto was a stand-up guy who does not back away from his debt. My argument to the jury was that if this accident did not happen, they would have been enjoying their retirement."
The jury ended up siding with the plaintiff to the tune of $550,000, awarding $350,000 to Lestrange and $200,000 to Scinto in a verdict rendered Jan. 8.
But it was far less than what the plaintiffs had sought, with Sreenivasan asking during closing arguments for more than $7 million in damages.
The lack of medical support took its toll, but Sreenivasan said he thinks the aftereffects swayed the New Haven Superior Court jury.
"The couple had a successful business for more than 40 years," the attorney said. "He was a plumber, and she was a general contractor. Their work life was interrupted because of this accident and this event."
Defense counsel Joseph Grippe of Cheshire-based Ouellette Deganis Gallagher & Grippe, pointed jurors to the lack of medical testimony and evidence.
"At trial, the plaintiffs provided testimony that they incurred more than $400,000 in medical bills," Grippe said. "The defense was able to get some of the injuries precluded, as there was no expert disclosed regarding causation."
The defense never admitted liability, and left it to the plaintiffs to prove their case.
Grippe said, "This was an unfortunate accident where the plaintiffs were claiming significant issues requiring multiple surgical procedures."
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 All‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute readAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readAttorney Overcomes Low Medical Bills, Captures $1 Million Policy Limit
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1House Passes Bill to Add Federal Judgeships in Face of Biden Veto Threat
- 2As AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
- 3Texas Lawyer, Client Sued for $10 Million Over Bitcoin Mining Deal
- 4Final Misconduct Hearing Date Impending for Fulton Judge
- 5Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
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