Rear-Ender Was Too Minor to Inflict Injury, Defense Contended
On Jan. 30, 2014, plaintiff Rachid Saladhine, 49, a property manager, was driving on Woodhaven Road, in Northeast Philadelphia. His front-seat passenger was plaintiff James Ruffin, a carpenter in his 60s.
November 02, 2017 at 04:55 PM
4 minute read
Saladhine v. McLean
Defense Verdict
Date of Verdict:
Sept. 13.
Court and Case No.:
C.P. Philadelphia No. 160101956.
Judge:
Ann M. Butchart.
Type of Action:
Motor vehicle.
Injuries:
Arm, lower back injuries.
Plaintiffs Counsel:
Thomas Bruno II, Abramson & Denenberg, Philadelphia.
Plaintiffs Experts:
Robert Nyahay, chiropractic, Philadelphia; Michael Brooks, radiology; Thornton; Raymond Wisdo, chiropractic, Woodlyn.
Defense Counsel:
Anastasia Filopoulos, Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg, Philadelphia.
Comment:
On Jan. 30, 2014, plaintiff Rachid Saladhine, 49, a property manager, was driving on Woodhaven Road, in Northeast Philadelphia. His front-seat passenger was plaintiff James Ruffin, a carpenter in his 60s.
When they neared Academy Road, they became stopped in traffic and were rear-ended by a sport utility vehicle. The SUV had just been rear-ended by another SUV, which in turn had been rear-ended by Amanda McLean. Both Saladhine and Ruffin claimed neck and back injuries.
Saladhine and Ruffin sued McLean, alleging that she was negligent in the operation of a vehicle.
McLean stipulated to negligence, and the case was tried on the issues of causation and damages. McLean's counsel maintained that there was no damage to the rear of Saladhine's truck.
Saladhine drove Ruffin to an emergency room, where Ruffin was examined and released. Saladhine, who was not examined, returned home but later presented to an emergency room, where he was examined and released.
Two days later, Saladhine presented to a pain-management facility, and was referred for chiropractic care, which he treated with through July. Treatment included spinal manipulation and massage.
Saladhine underwent MRIs and EMGs, and was diagnosed with herniations at cervical and lumbar intervertebral discs C3-4, C4-5, C5-6, C6-7, L1-2, L2-3, and L3-4, and with right-sided radiculopathy stemming from C6-7. He experienced numbness and tingling in his right (dominant) arm and hand. No further treatment was rendered.
Saladhine's expert in radiology only confirmed that he had herniations at L3-4, whereas his chiropractor confirmed that Saladhine had suffered multiple herniations in his neck and low back.
Saladhine testified that he continues to experience neck and back pain, which has made him moody and affected his relationship with his wife. He is no longer able to coach a youth soccer-league team, or to engage in physical activities at work. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering. Saladhine's wife, who made a claim for loss of consortium, had been stipulated out of the case, prior to trial.
Two days post-accident, Ruffin, complaining of headaches and neck and low-back pain, presented to a medical center and was referred to a chiropractor, with whom he treated for six months. Treatment included massage and spinal manipulation. He was initially diagnosed with strains and sprains to his cervical and lumbar spine.
Ruffin underwent MRIs and was diagnosed with herniations at lumbar intervertebral discs L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1. EMGs were normal. He further treated with an electrical-muscle stimulator at home.
Ruffin's chiropractor causally related his injuries and treatment to the accident, and opined that he requires future care.
Ruffin and his wife testified about how his injuries strained their relations. She has to help him put on and tie his shoes, and has taken on more household duties. Ruffin, who continues to experience back pain, sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.
McLean's counsel noted that Saladhine's expert in radiology had only observed one herniation in his back, which was inconsistent with his chiropractor's findings of herniations throughout Saladhine's cervical and lumbar spine.
According to McLean's counsel, Ruffin had alleged that he had missed work for a while after the accident; however, his chiropractor stated that, throughout his six months of treatment, Ruffin always presented to his office wearing a work belt, which indicated that he had missed no time from work.
The jury found that McLean's negligence was not a factual cause of injury to Saladhine and Ruffin.
This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to calls for comment.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication
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 AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readRule 126(b) Citations to Unpublished Opinions: Some of Us Still Don’t Get It
6 minute readProposed 'Bulk Sensitive Personal Data' Rule and the DOJ’s Comprehensive National Security Regulations
7 minute readThe Importance of Plaintiffs Not Letting Defendants Dictate Settlement Tax Strategies
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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