Brown v. Berrocales 

Defense Verdict

Date of Verdict: April 16.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 170703643.

Judge: D. Webster Keogh.

Type of Action: Motor vehicle, pedestrian.

Injuries: Back, neck injuries.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Kane Daly, Simon & Simon, Philadelphia.

Plaintiffs Expert: Geoffrey W. Temple, family medicine, Philadelphia.

Defense Counsel: Stephany L. Gordon. Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg, Philadelphia.

Defense Expert: Lee J. Harris, neurology, Abington.

Comment:

On May 2, 2017, plaintiff James Brown, a man in his early 50s, was walking on Germantown Avenue, at its intersection with Manheim Street, in North Philadelphia. Brown claimed that he was struck by a sedan, resulting in back injuries.

Brown sued the sedan's driver, Angel Berrocales, and the owner of the sedan, Patricia Magnus. Brown alleged that Berrocales was negligent in the operation of a vehicle and that Magnus was vicariously liable.

Magnus was dismissed from the case. The matter proceeded against Berrocales.

Brown testified that he was walking across the street when the left side of his body was struck by the front driver's side of the sedan, causing him to fall to the ground.

Berrocales denied striking Brown with his car. Berrocales testified that he stopped completely at the intersection and, when he was partially through his left turn, he felt a tap on the back of his sedan. He then pulled over and Brown alleged that the car had struck him.

The defense maintained that Berrocales did not strike Brown with his vehicle and that Brown gave conflicting accounts of the alleged incident. According to the defense, in one account, Brown stated that he was walking with his two grandchildren across the intersection and had to push them out of the way of Berrocales' oncoming vehicle. In another account, Brown reportedly stated that he was walking with a cane and with only one grandchild. In one instance, Brown allegedly said that he walked horizontally across the intersection, whereas in another instance he walked diagonally.

The defense contended that, if Brown walked diagonally at the intersection as he alleged, he would have been outside the unmarked crosswalk. Therefore, according to the defense, Brown had the duty to yield to Berrocales, the driver, which he failed to do. In that case, Berrocales was not liable for the alleged accident.

Brown was taken by ambulance to a hospital. He underwent an X-ray of his chest and CT scans of his head, neck, pelvis and hips, all of which were normal. He was discharged with instructions to follow up with his physician.

Brown was ultimately diagnosed with an aggravation of degenerative disc disease at lumbar intervertebral discs L1-2, L2-3, L3-4 and L4-5.

Brown had undergone back surgery in 2015 and was physically assaulted in 2016. At the time of the accident with Berrocales, Brown was continuing to take pain medication for the prior surgery and assault.

On May 5, 2017, Brown presented to a family medicine physician and was prescribed physical therapy. Brown treated with physical therapy for about a month. His treatment consisted of exercise and massage. Brown also continued taking pain medication in the months following the alleged incident with Berrocales and did so at the time of trial. No further treatment was rendered.

Brown's physician causally related Brown injuries and treatment to the subject accident. According to the doctor, Brown requires future epidural injections to his lumbar spine. Brown was receiving Social Security Disability benefits at the time of the accident. He testified that his back condition had been improving, but the accident permanently disabled him. He stated that it was too painful to treat with physical therapy and that his ongoing back pain causes difficulty walking and being intimate with his wife.

Brown sought to recover a medical lien of $1,600, approximately $10,000 in future medical costs, and damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The defense's expert in neurology, who examined Brown, testified there was no evidence that Brown suffered a traumatic injury from the accident or that there was any worsening of his baseline condition. Brown's complaints were not supported by objective findings, the expert concluded.

The defense's expert in radiology compared Brown's pre- and post-accident MRIs. The radiologist testified that there was no change in the pathology and no evidence that Brown suffered a traumatic injury.

The defense noted that the dosage of Brown's pain medication remained unchanged following the accident and that he suffered no bruising, abrasions or any evidence that he was struck by Berrocales' car.

The jury rendered a defense verdict, finding that Berrocales was negligent, but his negligence was not a factual cause of harm to Brown.

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.