Smith v. Crump

Defense Verdict

Date of Verdict: Sept. 21.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Allegheny No. GD-17-003106.

Judge: Phillip A. Ignelzi.

Type of Action: Motor vehicle.

Injuries: Neck injuries.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Amanda L. Nese, Simon & Simon, Pittsburgh.

Plaintiffs Expert: Derek J. Thomas, orthopedic surgery, Coraopolis.

Defense Counsel: Gregg A. Guthrie, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch,  Pittsburgh.

Defense Expert: Howard J. Senter, neurosurgery, Pittsburgh.

Comment:

On Oct. 31, 2016, plaintiff Dushawn Smith, 54, an independent contractor, was driving on Wylie Avenue toward its intersection with Spring Alley, in Clairton. As Smith entered the uncontrolled intersection, the passenger's side of his sedan was struck by the front of an unmarked police cruiser. Smith claimed neck injuries.

Smith sued the driver, Officer Debra Crump, and her employer, City of Clairton, alleging that she was negligent in the operation of a vehicle. By agreement of the parties, Crump was dismissed, prior to trial. Smith's counsel cited the officer for failing to yield the right-of-way and for failing to have her emergency lights and sirens activated. Smith's counsel cited Crump's accident report in which she indicated that she only had emergency lights activated at the time of the impact in violation of 75 PA C.S. Section 3105 (c).

According to Crump, she had been pursuing a suspect from an emergency call for “shots fired,” and had her emergency lights and sirens activated. Crump testified that as she was traveling on Spring Alley, she slowed down, looked for traffic in both directions of Wylie Avenue, did not see any traffic and proceeded into the intersection. As the officer entered the intersection, Smith failed to yield the right-of-way to the officer's emergency vehicle, the defense argued. Under Pennsylvania law, Smith had a duty to yield the right-of-way to Crump's emergency vehicle, and his failure to do so caused the accident, the defense maintained.

Following the accident, Smith presented to an emergency room where he was examined and released. On Nov. 11, Smith presented to a chiropractor with complaints of neck pain. Through October 2017, he treated with chiropractic care, which included massage and spinal manipulation. Smith underwent an MRI that allegedly showed protrusions at cervical intervertebral discs C3-4, C4-5 and C5-6. In early 2017, Smith came under the care of a pain-management specialist, who administered an epidural injection at C7-T11, and a facet injection to C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6. He underwent an EMG that allegedly showed bilateral radiculopathy stemming from C5-6.

In June 2017, Smith presented to an orthopedic surgeon, whom he consulted in the ensuing months. With conservative treatment unsuccessful, it was determined that Smith required surgical intervention.

In October, he underwent an anterior discectomy and fusion at C3-4 and C4-5. Following the surgery, Smith followed up with his surgeon. He sought to recover stipulated medical costs of $19,471.46.

Smith's orthopedic surgeon causally related his injuries and treatment to the accident, and opined that he suffered a permanent neck injury. He sought damages for his past pain and suffering.

Smith's orthopedic surgeon causally related his injuries and treatment to the accident. The surgeon testified that Smith had underlying spinal stenosis prior to the accident, and sustained an aggravation of his spinal stenosis along with the disc protrusions.

Smith testified that he continues to suffer from constant and severe neck pain. This allegedly causes him to lead a sedentary lifestyle, as it is painful to perform physical activities. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The defense's expert in neurosurgery, who examined Smith, testified that there was no objective or radiographic evidence that Smith suffered any structural injury as a result of the accident. The expert opined that his MRI showed pre-existing cervical stenosis, and that the surgery was performed to address Smith's pre-existing degenerative condition, and not any traumatic injury. The expert noted that Smith had a documented history of neck pain, and concluded that Smith would have required the same surgery irrespective of the accident.

The jury rendered a defense verdict.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs and defense counsel.

—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication.