Powell v. Yobst

Defense Verdict

Date of Verdict: Sept. 6.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Allegheny No. GD-17-013718.

Judge: Patrick Connelly.

Type of Action: Motor vehicle.

Injuries: Back injury.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Jessica M. Thimons, Simon & Simon.

Plaintiffs Expert: Lance O. Yarus, orthopedic surgery, Philadelphia.

Defense Counsel: Robert A. Loch, Robb Leonard Mulvihill, Pittsburgh.

Defense Expert: J. William Bookwalter III, neurosurgery, Pittsburgh.

Comment:

On March 12, 2017, plaintiff Vicki Powell, a woman in her 60s, was driving on Cedar Avenue, in Duquesne. While she was stopped at a red traffic signal, her car's rear end was struck by a trailing car that was being driven by Melissa Yobst. Powell claimed that she suffered injuries of her back.

Powell sued Yobst and the owners of Yobst's vehicle, Lawrence Kacik and Nancy Kacik. The lawsuit alleged that Yobst was negligent in the operation of her vehicle. The lawsuit further alleged that the remaining defendants were vicariously liable for Yobst's actions.

Lawrence Kacik and Nancy Kacik were dismissed, and Yobst's counsel conceded Yobst's liability.

The trial addressed damages against Yobst.

Within hours of the accident, Powell presented to an emergency room with complaints of lower back pain. She underwent diagnostic studies, which were negative, and she was discharged with a diagnosis of a strain and sprain.

Powell ultimately claimed that she suffered protrusions of her L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral discs. She also claimed that she developed residual impingement of a spinal nerve and resultant radiculopathy that stemmed from her lumbar region.

Powell immediately commenced a course of chiropractic treatment, which comprised massages and spinal manipulation. The treatment lasted nearly eight weeks. Powell subsequently underwent administration of an epidural injection of a steroid-based painkiller.

Powell claimed that she suffers residual pain that prevents her tolerance of prolonged periods in which she is seated or standing. She also claimed that she requires surgery and other treatment. She sought recovery of future medical expenses, damages for past pain and suffering, and damages for future pain and suffering.

The defense contended that the accident involved a merely minor collision that could not have caused the injuries that Powell claimed to have suffered.

The defense's expert neurosurgeon testified that his examination of Powell was negative for a back injury. Her MRI showed no evidence of traumatic changes to her spine, and at most, Powell suffered a lumbar strain from the accident, the expert opined. According to the expert, Powell did not need an epidural injection, there is no basis for surgery, and she did not suffer serious impairment of a bodily function.

Powell's counsel moved for a directed verdict on causation, which the court granted. The only issue for the jury to decide was whether Powell suffered serious impairment of a bodily function. The jury rendered a defense verdict.

This report is based on information that was provided by Yobst's counsel. Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to calls for comment, and the remaining defendants' counsel was not asked to contribute.

—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication