Parties Dispute the Severity of Plaintiff's Alleged Spinal Injuries
On Jan. 17, 2014, plaintiff Darlene Davis, 52, was a passenger in a sedan that was stopped in traffic on New Falls Road, at its intersection with Oxford Valley Road, in Levittown. Her car was rear-ended by another car.
June 20, 2019 at 01:55 PM
4 minute read
|
Davis v. Andrews
$1,000 Verdict
Date of Verdict: April 3.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Bucks No. 2015-08630.
Judge: Robert O. Baldi.
Type of Action: Motor vehicle.
Injuries: Spinal injuries.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Danielle L. Duffy, Spivack & Spivack.
Plaintiffs Expert: Robert F. Sing, family medicine, Springfield.
Defense Counsel: Geoffrey S. Peterson, Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg, Blue Bell.
Defense Expert: David E. Reinhardt, orthopedic surgery, Huntingdon Valley.
Comment:
On Jan. 17, 2014, plaintiff Darlene Davis, 52, was a passenger in a sedan that was stopped in traffic on New Falls Road, at its intersection with Oxford Valley Road, in Levittown. Her car was rear-ended by another car. Davis claimed neck and back injuries. Her daughter, plaintiff Sarah Davis, in her late 20s, was the driver and asserted injuries.
The Davises sued the driver, James Andrew, alleging that he was negligent in the operation of a vehicle.
Sarah Davis settled with Andrews for an undisclosed amount prior to trial. Andrews stipulated to liability, and the case was tried on the issue of damages as to Darlene Davis' claim.
Following the accident, Davis was driven to an emergency room and was examined and released. On Feb. 11, she sought treatment from her primary care physician, complaining of pain to her neck and back. Davis underwent MRIs and was diagnosed with strains and sprains to her neck and low back, and with an exacerbation of degenerative disc disease to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. On March 27, Davis began a course of physical therapy that consisted of massage and exercise. She treated through January 2015. Following the therapy, Davis continued to consult with her primary care physician and complained of ongoing neck and back pain. In the fall, she presented to a pain-management doctor and received three epidural injections to her lumbar spine. Davis underwent no further treatment until April 2016, when she treated with a course of chiropractic care. Through November 2017, Davis treated with 60 sessions, which included massage and spinal manipulation. No further treatment was rendered, and Davis sought to recover a medical lien of $4,000.
Davis' expert in family medicine causally related her injuries and treatment to the accident. According to the expert, Davis suffers permanent pain and stiffness in her neck and back, and her prognosis is poor.
Davis testified that her ongoing neck and back pain has altered her life. She alleged that she is unable to travel as she had been used to and that she can no longer engage in motorcycle riding, a hobby that she and her husband shared. She sought damages for past and future pain and suffering. Davis' husband testified about her condition, which has caused him to take on more household chores. He sought damages for his claim for loss of consortium.
The defense questioned Davis' alleged injuries given her gaps in treatment. According to the defense, she waited nearly a month before seeking further medical attention after the accident, and then more than a month until she started formally treating. There were additional gaps between the completion of her physical therapy and injections, and a further gap in starting chiropractic care, the defense asserted.
The defense's expert in orthopedic surgery, who examined Davis, testified that, at most, she suffered strains and sprains that resolved within weeks of the accident. The majority of her treatment was the result of her long-standing degenerative disc disease, which was unaffected by the accident, the expert concluded.
The jury determined that Darlene Davis was entitled to $1,000.
—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 AllThe Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge 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 readTrending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
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