Conklin v. O'Conner

$1,395 Verdict

Date of Verdict: May 22.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Montgomery No.  2016-24296.

Judge: Garrett D. Page.

Type of Action: Motor vehicle.

Injuries: Head and neck injuries.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Gregory R. Gifford, Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg & Gifford, Colmar.

Plaintiffs Expert: James H. Cook, neurology, Willow Grove.

Defense Counsel: Thomas J. Zimmerman, Kane, Pugh, Knoell, Troy & Kramer, Norristown.

Defense Expert: Lucas Z. Margolies, neurology, Wynnewood.

Comment:

On Oct. 13, 2014, plaintiff Leandra Conklin, 27, was stopped in traffic on Horsham Road, near its intersection with Hartman Road, in North Wales, when her sport utility vehicle was rear-ended by a sedan. Conklin claimed injuries to her head, neck and shoulder.

Conklin sued the driver, Maggie O'Conner. Conklin alleged that O'Conner was negligent in the operation of a vehicle. O'Conner stipulated to negligence, and the case was tried on the issues of causation and damages.

A few days later, Conklin presented to her primary care physician with complaints of headaches and pain in her neck and right shoulder, of her dominant arm. She was diagnosed with a whiplash injury, post-concussion syndrome, and strains and sprains to her cervical spine and shoulder. Conklin underwent X-rays of her neck and right shoulder, both of which were negative. She was put on a course of physical therapy for two months. During that time, an MRI of her right shoulder was negative. She also consulted with her neurologist, who had treated her prior to the accident, for headaches. Conklin also complained of dizzy spells and sensitivity to light and sound.

Following her completion of physical therapy, Conklin underwent no further treatment until 2016, when she returned to her primary care physician and neurologist with ongoing complaints of neck and shoulder pain. She received a series of nerve-block injections to her right shoulder. No further treatment was administered. Conklin sought to recover $295 in past medical costs.

In a report, Conklin's neurologist causally related Conklin's injuries and treatment to the accident, and he opined that Conklin suffered a serious impairment of a body function. The physician recommended additional nerve-block injections, which were estimated at $1,100. The parties agreed to try the case pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1311.1. Under the rule, a verdict is capped at $25,000, and expert-witness reports are submitted into evidence instead of live testimony by the expert witnesses.

Conklin testified that she continues to suffer from headaches, dizziness, sensitivity to light and sound, and pain in her neck and shoulder. She allegedly is unable to sit for long periods, and she has difficulty lifting heavy objects and engaging in activities that have repetitive motion, such as driving and typing.

The defense questioned the legitimacy and severity of Conklin's neck and shoulder injuries, since her X-rays and MRI were negative. The defense also noted Conklin's gap in treatment. O'Conner's counsel argued that Conklin's post-concussive symptoms were pre-existing, since she had treated with a neurologist for such symptoms prior to the accident. The defense cited a questionnaire form that Conklin had completed a couple of months prior to the accident, in which she listed dizziness as a complaint. The defense also cited Conklin's admission that, at one point following the accident, she played tennis with her husband using her right arm.

In a report, the defense's expert in neurology reported a normal examination of Conklin. The expert opined that Conklin had not suffered a serious impairment of a bodily function.

The jury found that while O'Conner's negligence was a factual cause of harm to Conklin, Conklin did not suffer a serious impairment of a bodily function. Conklin was determined to receive $1,395. The damages addressed past and future medical expenses.