$________ – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – REAR END COLLISION – CLOSED HEAD INJURY WITH COGNITIVE DEFICITS – BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY – RSD – TOTAL DISABILITY FROM EMPLOYMENT CLAIMED.

Montgomery County, PA

The plaintiff was a 36-year-old male who was in the course and scope of his employment making a lumber delivery when his truck was struck from behind by the defendant’s truck. The plaintiff claimed multiple severe and permanent injuries as a result of the collision. The defendant disputed the injuries alleged by the plaintiff and maintained that he was a malinger.

The plaintiff was driving a 26 foot delivery truck at the time of the rear end collision. He was diagnosed with a closed head injury, brachial plexus injury, herniated lumbar disc, cervical radiculopathy and a tendon rupture of the ankle requiring surgery; all of which he alleged was causally related to the impact. The plaintiff claimed that his accident-related injuries caused cognitive deficits, a personality change and debilitating RSD (reflex sympathetic dystrophy) of the left upper extremity.

The plaintiff’s neurologist reported, based on the timing of the plaintiff’s positive EMG findings, that his brachial plexus injury was causally related to the motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff contended that his previously active lifestyle was now reduced to a sedentary existence. He complained of functional limitations, sleeping difficulty and the inability to sit or stand for more than ten to 15 minutes at a time. The plaintiff claimed that he was totally, permanently disabled from employment as a result of the accident. The plaintiff’s life-care planner reported that the plaintiff requires future medical care, including treatment for RSD, which will cost a total of approximately $5 million. The plaintiff’s wife also asserted a claim for loss of services.

The defendant’s medical expert opined that the plaintiff’s RSD symptoms were related to preexisting conditions and were not caused by the subject rear end collision. The defense stressed that the plaintiff had significant documented prior neurological complaints as to his left upper extremity. He had undergone a previous left arm surgery involving transplantation of the ulnar nerve and was scheduled for additional surgery to remove a left wrist neuroma at the time of the subject accident. The defendant’s neuropsychologist opined that the plaintiff did not sustain a brain injury and that he showed evidence of malingering.The case was settled prior to trial for a total of $________.