Rear-Ender Caused Debilitating Migraines, Plaintiff Claimed
On Nov. 24, 2014, plaintiff Ann Maiorano, a hairstylist in her early 30s, was stopped in traffic on Sproul Road, in Broomall. A sedan rear-ended her sport utility vehicle. Maiorano claimed neck and head injuries.
August 29, 2019 at 04:00 PM
4 minute read
Maiorano v. Sherman
$14,000 Verdict
Date of Verdict: April 30.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Delaware No. CV-2016-009952.
Judge: Spiros E. Angelos.
Type of Action: Motor vehicle.
Injuries: Head, neck injuries.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Gary C. Bender, Forbes, Bender, Paolino & DiSanti, Media.
Plaintiffs Expert: Elliot A. Schulman, neurology, Wynnewood.
Defense Counsel: Andre J. Webb, Styliades, Mezzanotte & Hasson, Philadelphia.
Defense Expert: Richard H. Bennett, neurology, Elkins Park.
Comment:
On Nov. 24, 2014, plaintiff Ann Maiorano, a hairstylist in her early 30s, was stopped in traffic on Sproul Road, in Broomall. A sedan rear-ended her sport utility vehicle. Maiorano claimed neck and head injuries.
Maiorano sued the SUV driver, Howard Sherman. She alleged that Sherman was negligent in the operation of a vehicle.
During court-mandated arbitration, Maiorano's damages were determined to be $12,000. Sherman appealed the determination.
Sherman stipulated to liability. The lawsuit proceeded on the issues of causation and damages.
Hours after the accident, Maiorano presented to an emergency room with complaints of neck pain. She was examined and released. Maiorano was ultimately diagnosed with a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, a cervical strain, cervical spasms and a tailbone contusion.
A week after the accident, Maiorano presented to her primary care physician with complaints of pain in her neck and lower back, headaches, weakness and dizziness. The physician diagnosed her with a mild concussion, cervical strain and a contusion to her tailbone. She was referred to a neurologist and was prescribed physical therapy.
Within weeks of the accident, Maiorano presented to the neurologist, who confirmed her injuries and diagnosed her with post-concussion syndrome. Maiorano treated with the neurologist through May 2016. The doctor prescribed migraine medication and administered Botox injections.
From February 2015 to November 2015, Maiorano treated with 14 sessions of physical therapy that included massage and exercise. Maiorano received no further treatment.
Maiorano's neurologist causally related the injuries and treatment to the subject accident. The expert concluded that Maiorano will continue to suffer neck pain/spasms and headaches indefinitely.
Maiorano testified that her migraines are so severe that there are times she just lies on her bathroom floor due to nausea. She noted that her migraines can last up to two days. According to Maiorano, she had to cut back on her work hours and time exercising due to her ongoing neck pain and headaches. She additionally stated that bright lights and music aggravate her migraines and she has difficulty physically interacting with her son, including putting him in a car seat.
Maiorano sought damages for past and future pain and suffering. Her husband had filed a claim for loss of consortium, but the claim was withdrawn.
The defense maintained that the low-impact collision could not have caused Maiorano's injuries. Citing photographs, the defense contended that Maiorano's SUV sustained very minor damage to its rear bumper, with a dent and a couple of scratches visible.
The defense also cited Maiorano's medical records which purportedly showed, following a 2010 rear-end collision, she complained of similar neck and back injuries and received extensive conservative treatment.
The defense's expert in neurology testified that a full and complete recovery is expected to occur within three to four months following a concussion and that Maiorano's ongoing symptoms are most likely due to her prior cervical injuries. The expert noted the absence of objective evidence related to neurological impairment.
The jury determined that Maiorano's damages totaled $14,000.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs counsel. Additional information was gleaned from court documents. Defense counsel did not respond to the 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 AllFederal 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 readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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