Wimmer v. Rodriguez

Defense Verdict

Date of Verdict: Dec. 2, 2019.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 180702973.

Judge: Karen Shreeves-Johns.

Type of Action: Motor vehicle.

Injuries: Neck and back injuries.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Kevin M. Blake, Smith Mirabella Blake.

Plaintiffs Experts: Michael A. Crandall, chiropractic, Levittown; Stephen F. Ficchi, pain management, Philadelphia.

Defense Counsel: Jeffrey E. Tenthoff, Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, Philadelphia.

Defense Experts: Harvey E. Smith, orthopedic surgery, Philadelphia.

Comment:

On May 18, 2018, plaintiff Richard Wimmer, 63, was driving at the intersection of Charles Street and Passmore Street in Philadelphia. The driver's side of his sedan was struck by the front of a car. Wimmer claimed neck and back injuries.

Wimmer sued the driver, Carmen Rodriguez. Wimmer alleged that she was negligent in the operation of a vehicle.

The lawsuit alleged that Wimmer was driving on Charles Street, with Rodriguez driving on Passmore Street. Wimmer asserted that Rodriguez drove through a stop sign and struck his vehicle.

Wimmer's counsel relied on the testimony of a witness who was allegedly driving behind Wimmer at the time. The witness stated that Wimmer was driving on Charles Street when Rodriguez disregarded the stop sign on Passmore Street, causing the accident.

The defense maintained that Wimmer was comparatively negligent. Rodriguez alleged that she was driving on Charles Street and Wimmer on Passmore Street. She contended that it was Wimmer who drove through the stop sign, causing the accident.

The defense argued that it would have made sense for Wimmer to be traveling on Passmore Street, since that would have been the direction in which he was going to arrive at his home, located less than a block from the intersection. The defense further questioned the credibility of Wimmer's witness, as he did not identify himself as a witness at the scene, and there was no corroborating evidence that demonstrated he was where he claimed to have been.

Wimmer was taken by ambulance to an emergency room and given pain medication. Wimmer was ultimately diagnosed with a cervical strain and sprain, bulging at lumbar intervertebral discs L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1, and lumbar radiculopathy.

A few days following the accident, Wimmer, complaining of lower back pain, presented to his primary care physician. On May 29, 2018, Wimmer presented to a pain management facility and received treatment through Dec. 20, 2018. His treatment included physical therapy, pain medication and percutaneous electrical nerve stipulation.

From June 12, 2018, to Nov. 16, 2018, Wimmer underwent chiropractic care. His treatment consisted of massage and spinal manipulation. During that time, Wimmer underwent an MRI and an electromyography of his lumbar spine. He received no further treatment after December 2018.

Wimmer's pain management doctor and chiropractor causally related Wimmer's injuries and treatment to the accident. According to the physicians, Wimmer suffered a serious impairment of a bodily function, his prognosis is poor and he requires future treatment, including epidural injections and physical therapy.

Wimmer testified that he experiences ongoing back pain. He alleged that the pain prevents him from playing golf, which he enjoyed regularly prior to the accident, including volunteering with an organization that teaches visually impaired individuals how to golf. Wimmer also testified that he can no longer exercise or play basketball, and that he has difficulty walking and driving. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The defense noted that Wimmer, against medical advice, left the emergency room the day of the accident before undergoing X-rays.

The defense's expert in orthopedic surgery testified that, at most, Wimmer suffered a lumbar sprain that was resolved by the time the expert examined him. The expert stated that Wimmer's MRI showed only degenerative changes and that the accident did not cause Wimmer to suffer a serious impairment of a bodily function.

The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Rodriguez was not liable for the accident.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs and defense counsel.

—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication