Plaintiff Could Have Avoided Car Accident, Defense Contended
On Dec. 9, 2016, plaintiff Mark Clark, a man in his 50s, was driving on the Rankin Bridge, in Rankin. His car rear-ended a car that was being driven by Joseph Fink, who was attempting to merge onto the bridge from River Road.
August 15, 2019 at 12:38 PM
4 minute read
Clark v. Fink
Defense Verdict
Date of Verdict: March 11.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Allegheny No. GD-17-015782.
Judge: Patrick Connelly.
Type of Action: Motor vehicle.
Injuries: Back, neck, shoulder, wrist injuries.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Garth A. Gartin, Simon & Simon.
Plaintiffs Expert: Lance O. Yarus, orthopedic surgery, Philadelphia.
Defense Counsel: Robert A. Loch, Robb Leonard Mulvihill, Pittsburgh.
Defense Expert: Steven E. Kann, orthopedic surgery, Pittsburgh.
Comment:
On Dec. 9, 2016, plaintiff Mark Clark, a man in his 50s, was driving on the Rankin Bridge, in Rankin. His car rear-ended a car that was being driven by Joseph Fink, who was attempting to merge onto the bridge from River Road. Clark claimed that he suffered injuries of his back, his neck, a shoulder and a wrist.
Clark sued Fink. Clark alleged that Fink was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Clark testified that Fink attempted to merge onto the bridge when it was unsafe to do so, since he failed to ensure a safe, clear distance.
Fink testified that he had merged onto the bridge properly when Clark’s car rear-ended his car. The defense maintained that Clark should have seen Fink’s vehicle and should have avoided striking it.
After two days had passed, Clark presented to an emergency room with complaints of pain in his left shoulder, left wrist and ribs. X-rays of those areas were negative, and he was given medication and discharged.
Clark was ultimately diagnosed with a tear of the left shoulder’s glenoid labrum, a left-wrist sprain, strains and sprains of his cervical and lumbar regions, and radicular left-arm pain. On Dec. 24, 2016, Clark, with continuing pain in his left wrist, presented to his primary care physician, who diagnosed him with a wrist sprain. On Jan. 6, 2017, Clark presented to a chiropractor, complaining of pain in his neck, back and left shoulder. He was put on a course of chiropractic treatment, which consisted of massages and spinal manipulation, until Nov. 7, 2017. In February 2017, Clark underwent an MRI of his left shoulder that allegedly showed a tear of the superior glenoid labrum. He was further diagnosed with strains and sprains of his neck and lower back, all of which later resolved.
On Aug. 24, 2017, Clark presented to an orthopedic surgeon with complaints of pain in his neck, radiating to his left shoulder and arm. He received a cortisone injection in his left shoulder and another one in February 2018. No further treatment was rendered. Clark’s expert in orthopedic surgery causally related Clark’s injuries and treatment to the accident and opined that Clark suffered a serious impairment of a bodily function in his left shoulder. The expert recommended that Clark undergo future treatment, including physical therapy, injections and possible surgery.
Clark testified that he continues to experience pain, stiffness and a limited range of motion in his left shoulder. This allegedly causes difficulty performing certain activities of daily living and household duties. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.
The defense’s expert in orthopedic surgery, who examined Clark, testified that Clark suffers from advanced pre-existing arthritis in his left shoulder with tendonitis. The expert stated that the accident did not cause, contribute to or aggravate Clark’s pre-existing condition. The expert concluded that Clark’s only injury as a result of the accident was a contusion to his left wrist, which resolved shortly thereafter.
The defense cited Clark’s medical records, which detailed how he complained of left-shoulder pain from an incident that occurred Oct. 25, 2016, in which he struck his shoulder against a wall. Clark was referred to physical therapy for the complaint, but he did not undergo treatment, the defense noted.
The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Fink was not liable for the accident.
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
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