Dynko v. Miller

Defense Verdict

Date of Verdict: Aug. 16.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 180300858.

Judge: Daniel J. Anders.

Type of Action: Motor vehicle.

Injuries: Back injury.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Eugene Gitman, Law Offices of Eugene Gitman, Philadelphia.

Plaintiffs Expert: Yun-Sun Yang, chiropractic,Philadelphia.

Defense Counsel: Catherine N. Harrington, Harrington & Associates, Philadelphia.

Defense Expert: Michael L. Brooks, neuroradiology. Thornton.

Comment:

On April 20, 2017, plaintiff Peter Dynko, 65, was driving on Napfle Avenue, near its intersection at Roosevelt Boulevard, in Philadelphia. When Dynko reached the intersection, he stopped at a stop sign. Before he could resume travel, his sport utility vehicle's rear end was struck by a trailing vehicle that was being driven by Edward Miller. Dynko claimed that he suffered injuries of his back.

Dynko sued Miller. The lawsuit alleged that Miller was negligent in the operation of his vehicle. During court-mandated arbitration, Dynko was determined to receive $7,500, which Miller appealed. The case proceeded to a jury trial. 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.

The day after the accident, Dynko, complaining of lower back pain, presented to a rehabilitation facility. He was diagnosed with bulges of his L1-2, L2-3, L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral discs and associated radiculopathy.

Through Sept. 25, 2017, Dynko underwent 50 sessions of chiropractic treatment, which consisted of massages and exercises. In addition to back pain, Dynko complained of numbness in his left leg.

Dynko testified that he continues to experience back pain and radiating pain and numbness in his left leg. He allegedly is unable to sit and stand for prolonged periods.

Dynko sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering.

In a report, the defense's expert in neuroradiology opined that a post-accident MRI scan showed chronic and long-standing degenerative changes, with no evidence of a traumatic injury. Additionally, the expert stated that there was no compression of the spinal cord or nerve roots to support Dynko's complaints of numbness in his left leg.

In a report, the defense's expert in neurology, who reviewed a post-accident electromyography, opined that the imaging study was normal and that Dynko's complaints were unsupported by any objective findings.

The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Miller's negligence was not a factual cause of injury to Dynko.

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