A San Diego jury rejected a $12 million demand from two plaintiffs who claimed substantial injuries during a low-speed collision. Wyeth E. Burrows and Steven D. Stutsman successfully argued that the chronology of events demonstrated the accident was not a substantial factor in the need for the ensuing medical treatments.
In a case of stipulated liability, the client’s truck, hauling a scissor lift, rear-ended a pickup truck occupied by two plumbers on their way to a job. The occupants of the pickup were transported by a family friend to the emergency room with complaints of back and neck pain. The Plaintiffs were discharged with negative findings on MRIs and x-rays, but both returned in the following days with worsening complaints of pain. Over the course of the next year and a half, both Plaintiffs underwent conservative care, including physical therapy and multiple epidural injections. Eventually, they underwent surgeries to address their worsening complaints of pain, which now included radiculopathy into their arms and legs.
The first Plaintiff underwent two surgeries, including cervical fusion and disc replacement. As he denied any history of neck or back injuries prior to the collision, the treating orthopedist attributed the need for the surgeries to the collision. This Plaintiff incurred $600,000 in recoverable medical bills over a 24-month course of care. Defendants conceded at trial that this Plaintiff was disabled as a result of the surgeries and is unable to resume his career as a plumber. He faces significant obstacles to future employment beyond sedentary jobs, due to his dependence on a cane. He presented evidence of past and future lost wages of $1.2 million.
After the second Plaintiff failed conservative treatment, he also underwent surgery. This Plaintiff also denied any history of prior back injuries, and the orthopedist attributed the need for surgery to the collision. The second Plaintiff incurred $385,000 in past medical bills and sought an additional $245,000 for a future surgery. He also sought $700,000 in lost earnings, both past and present, due to limits on his ability to continue working as the owner of his plumbing company.
During closing argument, Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award Plaintiffs more than $12 million, including $3.1 million in economic losses.
Wyeth and Steve argued that Plaintiffs’ course of medical treatment documented inconsistent complaints of pain, including a two-month delay in the onset of radiculopathy. These inconsistencies undermined Plaintiffs’ injury claims. Wyeth and Steve went on to demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ surgeries were necessitated, if at all, by degenerative changes not attributable to the collision. They also argued that Plaintiffs’ medical bills were grossly inflated and presented evidence of a reasonable valuation of each item of care through expert testimony.
The defense presented by Wyeth and Steve was so compelling that the jury deliberated for only 3 hours before reaching their verdict, awarding the first Plaintiff $85,000 and the other Plaintiff just $54,000. The verdict reflected the exact value of the Plaintiffs’ damages as presented by Wyeth and Steve in this admitted liability case.
Even in cases of admitted liability, Burrows + Stutsman works tirelessly to identify a dynamic and tailored defense for every case in an effort to obtain the best results possible and protect our clients from paying more than is rightfully owed.
