ARTICLE ID 32736
$________ - LOW IMPACT REAR END COLLISION - CONCUSSION AND MILD TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY - PSYCHIATRIC OVERLAY - GLOBAL AMNESIA.
Mercer County
In this action, the male plaintiff, age 29 at the time of the accident
and 39 at the time of the settlement, contended that as a result of
the negligence of the defendant driver, who struck him in the rear
while he was stopped in traffic, he suffered a concussion, a postconcussion
syndrome, a "mild" traumatic brain injury producing abnormalities
as noted on a SPECT (single-photon emission computed tomography) brain
scan, and a psychiatric overlay requiring hospitalization and manifesting
in amnesia and emotional lability which has left the former forklift
operator permanently unemployable. The plaintiff also contended that
the personality change occasioned suicidal ideation and an incident
in which he threatened his wife with violence, resulting in his leaving
the home. The couple ultimately divorced. The evidence disclosed that
the collision was low impact in nature, that the car suffered minimal
property damage and the defendant denied that the plaintiffs claims
of suffering such injuries from this low-impact collision, should
be accepted.
The plaintiff contended that as he was stopped in traffic, the defendant
driver suddenly struck his vehicle from behind. The plaintiff was
brought to the emergency room and complained of headaches and neck
pain. He was released with a sheet warning about the possible symptoms
of concussion. The plaintiff maintained that he vomited shortly after
he left the emergency room. The plaintiff visited his family physician
a few days later and the family physician diagnosed a concussion.
The plaintiff maintained that over the ensuing several weeks, he developed
significant memory deficits and became progressively irritable, culminating
in an incident approximately four months after the accident in which
he threatened his wife with violence and expressed an intent to commit
suicide. The plaintiff was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric
hospital for approximately one month following this incident.
The plaintiff maintained that on one occasion, he displayed signs
of a seizure. The seizure could not be confirmed and the plaintiff
contended that it was likely that he had suffered a "pseudo-seizure"
which was psychiatric in origin. The plaintiff spent several months
in a brain injury rehabilitation facility after the seizure. The plaintiff
maintained that during this period, a SPECT Scan showed areas of abnormalities
involving a reduction of blood flow in the area of the temporal lobe.
The plaintiffs neuropsychologist maintained that the results largely
correlated with neuropsychological testing showing cognitive deficits
associated with the temporal and frontal lobe trauma.
The plaintiff would have also produced 4-5 lay witnesses who had known
the plaintiff well since he was approximately 16 years of age. The
witnesses related that when they visited the plaintiff shortly after
he left the brain injury rehabilitation facility, they observed an
extremely stark change in the plaintiff and that he did not appear
to recognize them. The plaintiff also contended that he could not
recall major events in his life including his wedding and the births
of his two children.
The plaintiffs psychiatrist would have contended that based upon
the onset of symptoms at the time of the head trauma, his clinical
course and the testing, the plaintiff had suffered a mild traumatic
brain injury with a psychiatric overlay. The psychiatrist contended
the plaintiff had a very troubled childhood which left him a fragile
vessel. The expert maintained that although the physical head trauma
would not readily explain the severe symptoms such as global amnesia,
the superimposition of a brain injury on the underlying emotional
fragility accounted for the rapid deterioration of the plaintiffs
condition after the accident. The expert contended that the plaintiffs
disability and a flat affect which is readily observable are permanent
in nature. The plaintiff also contended that he is unemployable.
The defendant denied that the accident could have caused the plaintiffs
complaints and the defendants neuropsychologist denied that the battery
of testing performed supported the plaintiffs claims. The plaintiff
would have countered that the manner in which the defendants expert
administered testing was seriously flawed and that his interpretation
of the results should, therefore, be rejected. The plaintiff maintained
that during one portion of the testing, proper procedures require
that the patient be stopped at the point of an error and then continue
from that point on. The plaintiff maintained that the defense expert
did not follow this procedure, and also contended that in other portions
of the test, this expert failed to follow requirements relating to
when the patient should write down calculations. The plaintiff would
have further pointed to the deposition testimony of a well known neuropsychologist
who developed a number of these tests. The plaintiff would have stressed
that in portions of his deposition, he agreed that the plaintiff was
not malingering, and that in other portions, he ultimately agreed
that the testing procedures of both the plaintiffs and defendants
experts were flawed to some degree.
The defendant would have also presented an accident reconstruction
expert to contend that the G-forces involved in such a low impact
collision would not cause the claimed injuries. The plaintiff countered
that the studies relied upon by the defendant involved very controlled
situations in which subjects were facing forward only with their heads
against the head rests. The plaintiff argued that such testing could
well fail to correlate with the actual forces exerted on an individual
in an uncontrolled collision. The plaintiff also contended that the
subjects in the studies did not suffer from preexisting emotional
difficulties such as the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is currently collecting social security disability benefits,
and after staying with his sister and brother-in-law for a period,
he moved to a small house where he lives alone. The plaintiff would
have introduced photographs comparing the comfortable appearing family
home he lived in prior to the subject accident with his current home,
and the plaintiff would have argued that the jury could well determine
the manner in which the plaintiffs life has so dramatically changed.
The case settled prior to trial for $________.
5 ways to win with JVRA
JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.
Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.