Strategies for Defending Low-Impact Collisions With Fusion Surgeries in NY
Nicholas P. Hurzeler writes: The spread of fusion surgeries in personal injury cases in recent years, in New York and across the country, has been remarkable. More and more plaintiffs are undergoing cervical and lumbar fusion surgeries. Even in cases involving very minor motor vehicle collisions, and questionable causation claims, the odds of a verdict in plaintiff's favor is substantial.
August 24, 2017 at 02:02 PM
10 minute read
The spread of fusion surgeries in personal injury cases in recent years, in New York and across the country, has been remarkable. More and more plaintiffs are undergoing cervical and lumbar fusion surgeries. Even in cases involving very minor motor vehicle collisions, and questionable causation claims, the odds of a verdict in plaintiff's favor is substantial. Juries frequently agree with plaintiffs and their experts that fusion surgeries are causally related, even to a low-impact collision event.
In view of the growing importance of defending these claims, this article will explore updated strategies for defending low-impact collisions and fusion surgeries in New York. We will examine the usual toolkit of expert trial presentations, and potential strategies for improving that formula. We will then discuss novel approaches, such as video and computer simulation reconstruction for use during trial.
The Typical Approach
The standard defense is essentially to hire a well-credentialed biomechanical engineer and orthopedic surgeon, and present their testimony to the jury on the issues of medical necessity and causation. Ideally, the expert testimony will be supplemented with vehicle photographs and damage estimates, along with any available lay testimony, in support of the defendant's position that the collision event was too minor to cause the fusion surgery or surgeries. Testimony from an accident reconstruction expert may also be presented.
This strategy is often ineffective. The plaintiff's bar is adept at presenting testimony from their own biomechanical engineer, accident reconstruction expert, and medical professionals (frequently the plaintiff's own treating surgeon). The plaintiff's surgeon will often be more persuasive regarding causation, because he or she has the benefit of having personally seen the plaintiff's spine during surgery. Their opinion of a traumatically-induced injury is more persuasive than a defense physician who never saw the inside of the plaintiff's spine up close, and is instead relying on a physical examination done long after the fact, as well as diagnostic studies (and, possibly, photographs taken during the surgery).
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 AllWilmer's Bharara to Lead Probe Into Alleged State Police Traffic Enforcement 'Slowdown'
3 minute readDecision of the Day: Court Orders Amicus Briefs in Case Involving Emotional Distress of Deceased Dog
'Nuclear Verdicts' Again Cited as Ga., Pa. Courts Tie for No. 1 Judicial Hellhole
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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