Left Turn by Tractor-Trailer Caused Back Injuries: Plaintiff
On Dec. 12, 2013, plaintiff Arnold Perry, 62, was stopped in traffic while traveling south on 16th Street, just past its intersection with Penn Avenue, in Pittsburgh.
March 21, 2019 at 03:34 PM
4 minute read
Perry v. Pulliam
$125,000 Verdict
Date of Verdict: Nov. 14, 2018.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Allegheny No. GD-15-019752.
Judge: Arnold I. Klein.
Type of Action: Motor vehicle.
Injuries: Back injuries.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Paul G. Mayer Jr., Friday & Cox, Pittsburgh.
Plaintiffs Expert: Robert G. Edwards, general practice, Pittsburgh.
Defense Counsel: Christopher J. Sichok, Law Offices of Terry L.M. Bashline, Pittsburgh.
Defense Expert: Stephen J. Thomas, orthopedic surgery, Pittsburgh.
Comment:
On Dec. 12, 2013, plaintiff Arnold Perry, 62, was stopped in traffic while traveling south on 16th Street, just past its intersection with Penn Avenue, in Pittsburgh. As Perry remained stopped, the rear driver's side of his sport utility vehicle was struck by the trailer of a tractor-trailer, which was traveling northbound on 16th Street and which was attempting to turn left onto Penn Avenue. In doing so, the trailer came into Perry's lane and struck his SUV. Perry claimed back injuries.
Perry sued the driver, Curtis Pulliam, and his employer, P&S Transportation. He alleged that Pulliam was negligent in the operation of a vehicle. He further alleged that P&S Transportation was vicariously liable for Pulliam's actions.
The defendants stipulated to liability, and the case was tried on the issues of causation and damages.
Perry was taken by ambulance to a hospital where he was admitted with complaints of pain to his neck and low back. He was admitted, underwent X-rays and MRIs, and was diagnosed with strains to his cervical and lumbar spine, a sprain to his thoracic spine, and lumbar disc disease.
On Dec. 16, he was discharged with restrictions on physical activity, including lifting in excess of five pounds and no climbing or skipping.
For the next month, Perry consulted with his primary care physician and treated with over-the-counter pain medication. From Feb. 6 to March 19, Perry treated with six sessions of physical therapy; the treatment consisted of massages and exercises.
Following this treatment, Perry came under the care of his prior surgeon, who had performed a lumbar fusion and discectomy on him in June 2011. Perry underwent further testing and was diagnosed with a herniation at lumbar intervertebral disc L1-2, right-sided radiculopathy stemming from L1-2 and an aggravation of degenerative changes at L1-2, L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1. Perry further treated with pain medication.
Perry treated through June 2014, at which time he underwent a back surgery relating to his June 2011 procedure. No further treatment was rendered.
Perry's physician testified that the accident caused him to suffer a traumatically induced herniation and radiculopathy at L1-2, and an aggravation of his pre-existing lumbar condition.
Perry, who was receiving Social Security disability benefits at the time of the collision, testified that he continues to experience ongoing back pain and radicular pain in his right leg. He stated that it is more challenging to perform some household chores and that he has difficulty standing and walking for long periods. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.
The defense maintained that any injuries Perry suffered from the accident were soft tissue in nature, which would have resolved within weeks of the accident. The defense attributed Perry's ongoing complaints to his longstanding, well-documented pre-existing back condition, which had resulted in a 2011 decompression and fusion.
The jury found that the defendants' negligence was a factual cause of harm to Perry. Perry was determined to receive $125,000.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs and defense counsel.
—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 AllJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
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