Hollis v. Atkins

$700,000 Verdict

Date of Verdict: Jan. 9.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 170802642.

Judge: Sean F. Kennedy.

Type of Action: Motor vehicle.

Injuries: Leg, back, head injuries.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Justin K. Youkey, Spear, Greenfield, Richman, Weitz & Taggart, Philadelphia.

Plaintiffs Expert: Norman B. Stempler, orthopedic surgery, Bensalem.

Defense Counsel: Kristin M. Waller, Law Offices of Kenneth S. O'Neill, Philadelphia.

Defense Expert: Richard D. Lackman, orthopedic surgery, Camden, New Jersey.

Comment:

On Feb. 5, 2016, plaintiff Eric Hollis, 43, a valet, was stopped at a red light on 16th Street, at its intersection with Arch Street, in Center City, when his sedan was rear-ended by a pickup truck. He claimed back injuries.

Hollis sued the driver, Shawn Atkins. He alleged that Atkins was negligent in the operation of a vehicle.

Atkins stipulated to liability, and the case was tried on the issues of causation and damages.

Following the accident, Hollis drove himself to an emergency room where he was examined and diagnosed with a head contusion; he struck his head against the steering wheel. He was released with instructions to follow up with additional treatment.

On Feb. 15, Hollis presented to a rehabilitation facility with complaints of pain to his neck and back. Through July, he treated with 48 sessions of physical therapy, which included massage and exercise. During his course of treatment, he consulted with a pain-management physician, who prescribed him pain medication.

In June, he underwent MRIs and was diagnosed with a herniation at lumbar intervertebral disc L4-5, bilateral radiculopathy stemming from L4-5 and strains and sprains of his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. He further alleged experiencing numbness and tingling in his legs.

Following his completion of physical therapy, Hollis treated with home exercises and a TENS unit, but he continued to experience low-back complaints. In 2018, he was referred to an orthopedic surgeon, who determined that Hollis likely requires back surgery. No further treatment was administered.

Hollis' expert in orthopedic surgery causally related his injuries and treatment to the accident. According to the expert, Hollis suffered a permanent and serious impairment to his lumbar spine, and if his complaints continue, he likely will need surgery.

Hollis testified that he continues to suffer from low-back pain and numbness and tingling in his legs. According to Hollis, this causes him to suffer an impaired gait and an inability to sit for long periods. He stated that he requires assistance in his valet job at a condominium. In addition to parking vehicles, he carries luggage, packages and other heavy objects for its residents, all of which he has difficulty doing. He is unable to walk more than a block before taking a break. Hollis testified that he is exhausted after coming home from work, and as a result, he does not have much of a social life. He also said the can no longer work out at the gym and play basketball. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The defense maintained that there was only a small dent on Hollis' car and a couple of scratches on Atkins' truck following the collision. Moreover, Hollis was able to drive away from the accident scene and continues to drive the same vehicle at the time of trial. Atkins' counsel argued that the impact was minimal and could not have caused Hollis to suffer a serious impairment of a body function. The defense further questioned the severity of Hollis' injuries since he took up a second job, working an additional 10 hours a week.

The defense's expert in orthopedic surgery, who examined Hollis, opined that Hollis only suffered soft-tissue strains and sprains. According to the expert, the L4-5 herniation was degenerative and predated the accident. The expert concluded that Hollis did not suffer a serious impairment of a body function.

The jury found that Hollis' injuries were a serious impairment of a body function. He was determined to receive $700,000.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to calls for comment.

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