Plaintiff claimed a traumatic brain injury, neck pain, and low back pain as a result of a tree falling on him on defendants’ property. Liability for this incident was not disputed. Plaintiff requested the jury to award approximately $1 million in damages. The jury agreed with the defense that plaintiff suffered from multiple prior and subsequent head injuries to which no future medical expenses could be definitive in relation to this incident, awarding $37,000 in damages.
In an admitted liability case where the plaintiff had undergone minimal conservative treatment and alleged post-traumatic stress lasting four-year post-collision, the jury awarded approximately $16,000, as opposed to the $1,200,000 requested by the plaintiff. The jury agreed with our medical experts that plaintiff suffered from a degenerative neck condition and denied the allegation of emotional distress attributable to the collision.
In an admitted liability case, the defense disputed the need for and effect of plaintiff’s low back surgery. Plaintiff asked for $1,425,000 but received only $18,000. She appealed, but the 3rd Appellate District upheld the verdict and further held the defendants were entitled to their costs and expert fees of over $40,000. The net result was plaintiff owed the defendant almost $20,000.
In a case of admitted liability involving a T-bone collision, Plaintiff claimed that the accident caused a knee injury that later required surgery, even though there was no evidence that he struck his knee during the collision. Plaintiff demanded $50,000. Prior to trial, Plaintiff was offered $12,000, to settle the case. The jury awarded Plaintiff $6,500.
In a disputed liability case, Plaintiff fell and broke his neck at Defendant homeowner’s property. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $600,000. The jury found Plaintiff to be 95% at fault, with a net verdict of just under $9,000.
In a disputed liability case, plaintiff suffered a severely fractured ankle when hit by a car at defendant’s auto auction and asked the jury for $975,000 claiming an inability to return to work. Using expert testimony the defense established that the driver was not at fault, as plaintiff walked into the tire of the vehicle as it was rolling by him. Having made a statutory offer before trial, the defense was also awarded its costs, including expert fees.
In an admitted liability case, Plaintiff claimed that a motor vehicle accident resulted in soft tissue injuries as well as a knee injury requiring surgery. Plaintiff requested that the jury award over $65,000, in damages. The jury, agreeing with Defendants position that this accident caused only minor soft tissue injuries and did not result in knee surgery, returned a verdict of $1,800.
Plaintiff claimed the need for neck surgery as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Liability for this accident was not disputed. Plaintiff requested the jury to award $900,000 in damages. The jury ultimately agreed with the defense and his expert that Plaintiff had a two-decade history of degenerative disc disease, awarding just under $22,000, in damages.
In a bench trial concerning a complaint against a Homeowners Association and its President, Plaintiff sought damages alleging lost rental profits. Defendants ultimately prevailed, Plaintiff was awarded no costs, and the judge ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendants costs.
Plaintiff claimed that she suffered a plethora of injuries that required years of treatment and claimed a substantial loss of income. Liability was not at issue. She asked the jury for over $500,000, but the jury awarded her only $45,000, agreeing with Defendant’s medical expert that Plaintiff suffered only soft tissue injuries.
In an admitted liability case where plaintiff had undergone back surgery, the jury awarded only $18,000, rather than the $1,425,000 asked for, as the jury agreed with our team of medical experts that plaintiff suffered from a degenerative condition in her back, not a new injury.
Plaintiff abandoned his case in mid-trial, accepting our pre-trial offer for less than one-fourth of his demand after our cross-examination of plaintiff and his doctors used plaintiff’s own medical records to show multiple reasons for his complaints, all unrelated to his accident.