Gholston v. Garvan

Defense Verdict

Date of Verdict: Oct. 31.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 170702657.

Judge: Mary D. Collins.

Type of Action: Motor vehicle.

Injuries: Back, neck sprains.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Alexander Kipperman, Spear, Greenfield, Richman & Weitz, Philadelphia.

Plaintiffs Expert: Mark D.T. Allen, orthopedic surgery, Germantown.

Defense Counsel: Jillian Vukson, Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, Philadelphia.

Defense Experts: Andrew H. Shaer, radiology, Jenkintown; Daniel M. Feinberg, neurology, Philadelphia.

Comment:

On Jan. 5, 2016, plaintiff Kira Gholston, 34, a fiscal administrator, was driving on Stenton Avenue at its intersection with East Gorgas Lane, in North Philadelphia, when she struck the side of a car with the front of her sedan. The car had been driving on East Gorgas Lane and allegedly drove through a stop sign, causing Gholston to strike the rear passenger's side quarter panel of the sedan. She claimed neck and back injuries.

Gholston sued the driver, Joan Hendricks Garvan, alleging that she was negligent in the operation of a vehicle. She also sued the owner of Garvan's vehicle, Anthony Garvan Jr., who was dismissed, prior to trial.

Gholston testified that Garvan, who had a stop sign at the intersection, did not completely stop, and instead did a rolling stop. Garvan drove into the intersection directly into Gholston's path of travel, and thereby causing the accident, Gholston's counsel argued. However, Gholston testified that she saw Gholston enter the intersection

Garvan maintained that she stopped at the stop sign and then proceeded into the intersection after ascertaining it was safe to do so. The defense contended that Gholston proceeded to enter the intersection despite seeing Garvan's car crossing, as she admitted. Therefore, counsel argued that Gholston had the last opportunity to avoid the accident, yet admittedly took no action to do so, including applying her brakes or swerving her vehicle.

Following the accident, Gholston drove herself to an emergency room where she was examined and released. Sixteen days later, Gholston presented to a rehabilitation facility with complaints of pain to her neck, upper and lower back and right and right shoulder, of her dominant arm. She was put on a course of physical therapy, which she treated for over six months; her treatment consisted of massage and exercise.

During her period of treatment, she consulted with an orthopedic surgeon and underwent MRIs and EMGs. Gholston was diagnosed with herniations to cervical intervertebral discs C3-4 and C4-5; bulging at C2-3; protrusions at C5-6 and C6-7; left-sided radiculopathy stemming from C5-6; right-sided radiculopathy stemming from C7-T1; strains and sprains of her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine; a sprain to her right shoulder; and bilateral radiculopathy stemming from L5-S1.

During her six months of treatment, Gholston received a trigger-point injection to her right trapezius muscle. No further treatment was rendered, and she sought to recover over $11,000 in medical costs.

Gholston's orthopedic surgeon testified that the accident resulted in her injuries and treatment. The physician determined that she suffered a serious impairment to her spine and shoulder, and that if her problems persisted, she may require additional treatment, including facet injections and possibly surgery.

Gholston testified that she continues to experience pain and discomfort in her neck, upper and lower back, and right shoulder. She alleged that at work she required assistance in lifting office supplies. She testified that she has difficulty sleeping, cleaning around the house and taking care of her two children. Gholston sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The defense's expert in neurology, who examined Gholston, testified that there was no objective evidence that she suffered an injury from the accident. The expert also determined that her complaints of shoulder and spinal pain were similar to her pre-accident complaints. The expert concluded that Gholston did not suffer a serious impairment of a bodily function.

The defense's expert in radiology compared a 2011 MRI to a 2016 MRI to opine that the same pathology in the cervical and lumbar spine existed on both films, and that there were no changes between the studies.

The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Garvan was negligent but his negligence was not a factual cause of harm to Gholston.

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.