When the Offending Driver Suddenly Changed Her Story – We Demanded to Review the File
The standard car accident case often involves one or two plaintiffs against one or two defendants. Frequently, the other car (i.e., the offending vehicle) was owned by one person and driven by a different person. In this scenario, it is common to start one lawsuit against two people: the driver of the other car and the owner of the other car. Usually, the other driver denies any wrongdoing, and the owner of the other car also denies any wrongdoing, but acknowledges that the driver of her car operated her car with her permission,
Recently, we had such a case, which progressed along in the courthouse for about six months. Then, out of the blue, the owner of the other vehicle suddenly asked the Court for permission to change her position in the case. Suddenly, the other driver claimed that during the car crash, her car had been operated without her permission. Out of the blue, the other driver suddenly made a motion to the court for official permission to change her posture in the case. In her supporting affidavit, which she filed in support of her application to the court to change her legal position in the case to claim that the driver of her car did not have her permission, the other driver stated: “I never told my insurance company or my original attorneys that my son had permission to drive the car and have always insisted that he did not have my permission or consent.”
What was our response? We filed a cross-motion demanding that the Court order the other driver’s insurance company to disclose the entire insurance file to us, so we could see for ourselves if and when she made such a statement, as she now claimed.
Here’s the motion:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER —————————————-x MAURA G. DAVIS, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL -against-
DONALD W. WALLACE and DONNA P. WALLACE, Index No. 02888/2012
WILLIAM MARTIN, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury:
I am an attorney with the law firm of Martin + Colin, P.C. representing the plaintiff, Maura G. Davis, and as such I am thoroughly familiar with the facts and circumstances herein.
I submit this affirmation in support of Plaintiff’s motion to compel non-party Progressive Insurance Company to turn over: such portions of the relevant claim file for Claim No.: 12-1818654, Loss Date: April 25, 2012 as specifies or contains materials, records, information concerning Donald Wallace’s use of the subject vehicle including but not limited to documents, notes, electronic recordings, etc.
The subject car accident occurred on April 25, 2012 at the intersection of Aqueduct Road and Russell Street in the City of White Plains, County of Westchester, State of New York.
At the time of the accident, both defendants lived in the same home. Both Donna P. Wallace and Donald W. Wallace gave the same address according to the Police Accident Report. (see MV-104A Police Accident Report annexed hereto as Exhibit “1”).
The MV-104A Police Accident Report’s accident description states that the defendant, Donna P. Wallace, took her son, Donald W. Wallace, to the police station soon after the accident and that she gave a statement to the police. Her statement to the White Plains Police Department was that her son was driving her car. She did NOT at any time tell the police that her son was driving her car without her permission.
As a result of this accident, Donald Wallace was arrested, charged, convicted and served one year in jail (see Certificate of Conviction annexed hereto as Exhibit “2”).
Unauthorized use of motor vehicle does not appear anywhere in the police documents surrounding this accident and the arrest arising therefrom. The White Plains Police did a thorough investigation. They did not just arrest him and charge with DWI. They did a thorough investigation, lasting over a month. They took statements from several critical witnesses. Among others, they took a statement from Donna Wallace. She told police her son Donald was operating her vehicle. Once again, she did NOT tell police that he was operating her vehicle without her consent (see supporting deposition of Donna Wallace, dated May 1, 2012, annexed hereto as Exhibit “3”).
This action was commenced by the filing of a Summons and Verified Complaint on December 31, 2012 (see Summons and Complaint annexed hereto as Exhibit “4”). That is over three years ago.
Defendant Donna P. Wallace’s insurance company, Progressive Insurance, requested ten (10) adjournments prior to serving their answer. Our office did not receive an answer from the defendants until April 4, 2014. Thus, Progressive Insurance took approximately fifteen (15) months to investigate this claim prior to filing their answer (see Answer filed April 4, 2014 annexed hereto as Exhibit “5”). As part of that answer, Progressive attorney Joan A. Ramirez admitted that Donald Wallace operated the vehicle with the owner Donna Wallace’s consent (see that Complaint par. 5 is not expressly denied).
Subsequently, by motion to this Court, Donna Wallace was permitted to change her answer to deny permissive use of her vehicle. In her supporting affidavit, sworn to on June 18, 2014, more than two years after the accident, she stated: “I never told my insurance company or my original attorneys that my son had permission to drive the car and have always insisted that he did not have my permission or consent” (see Affidavit of Donna Wallace annexed hereto as Exhibit “6”).
At Examination Before Trial, defendant Donna Wallace herself testified that she contacted Progressive on the day of the accident and told them that her son drove her car without her permission and that he did not have a license or insurance. She further testified that she thinks she put the same in writing to Progressive, and that she has no objection to Plaintiff looking at that file. (see EBT Transcript pages 29-31 annexed hereto as Exhibit “7”).
Thus, as testified by Donna Wallace herself, there must be entries, notes and possibly documents in the Progressive claim file to that effect that Donna did not give her son consent to operate her vehicle on the date of the accident. That was Donna Wallace’s testimony.
As the contents of the Progressive claim file has been placed into issue by defendant Donna Wallace herself, Progressive cannot assert a claim of privilege as a sword to cover up Donna Wallace’s prior statements. If, in fact, defendant Donna Wallace has recently changed her story, she cannot now use the privilege as a basis to deny plaintiff access to her prior statements; those prior statements to her insurance company are important evidence in the search for the truth. Plaintiff cannot obtain the Progressive Insurance File by any other means, as only Progressive Insurance has the only copy of the file.
Several months ago, this Honorable Court issued a “so ordered” subpoena on Progressive Insurance to produce its file (annexed hereto as Exhibit “9”). Progressive refuses to do so.
For the many reasons set forth above, and based on the legal arguments set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant this motion in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the plaintiff’s application be granted in its entirety, and that this Court grant plaintiff’s motion to compel non-party Progressive Insurance Company to turn over immediately to plaintiff such portions of the relevant claim file for Claim No.: 11-2727654, Loss Date: April 25, 2012 as specifies or contains materials, records, information concerning Donald Wallace’s use of the subject vehicle including but not limited to documents, notes, electronic recordings, etc., and that this Court grant such other and further relief as to this Court seems just and proper.
Dated: White Plains, New York September 4, 2015
__________________________________ WILLIAM MARTIN
Well, there you have it. That was the sworn statement in support of our motion for disclosure of the relevant portions of the insurance company file. We hope you find it helpful.
If you or a member of your family has been hurt in an accident due to the negligence of another person, the experienced personal injury lawyers at Martin + Colin, P.C. may be able to help.
CALL US NOW AT (914) 771 7711 AND LET US APPLY OUR EXPERTISE TO YOUR CASE.
Martin + Colin, P.C. announced today a settlement for a driver who suffered personal injuries during a car crash in the State of Missouri. The out-of-state car accident victim, a Washington Heights (Manhattan) resident, was the driver of a rented automobile. The injured New Yorker called us to discuss his claim, and whether he should hire an attorney from New York for an out-of-state car accident claim. After our discussion, our client chose our firm to represent him in his car accident case. We immediately set out to protect our injured client’s rights and obtain for him the financial compensation he deserved. Today, we are pleased to report that, within one year of the accident, we were able to secure the other vehicle’s entire insurance policy as a settlement for our client.
CAR ACCIDENT FACTS
One early morning in 2016, our client drove through Ferguson, Missouri to return his rented car to the local office of a national car rental corporation, and then catch a ride to the airport to come back home to New York City. Our client waited in the left hand lane, with his blinker on, waiting to turn left into the car rental return location. Suddenly and unexpectedly, another vehicle slammed into our client’s vehicle, completely destroying the rental vehicle and causing serious physical injuries to our client.
PHYSICAL INJURY AND MEDICAL TREATMENT FACTS
Our injured client went directly from the accident scene to St. Louis (Mo.) Medical Center by ambulance. His chief complaints at the hospital were pain in his head and back, and cuts to his face. An x-ray was performed at hospital, which showed no significant abnormalities. Our client was kept in the hospital overnight. Our injured client was discharged with instruction to follow up with an orthopedist if his pain did not improve or if he experienced an increase in symptoms.
As our injured client experienced persistent pain, he consulted with an orthopedist and a pain management specialist. He also received physical therapy. His complaints included: 1) aching, decreased range of motion, pain, spasms, and weakness of the lower back; and 2) severe headaches.
The orthopedic surgeon diagnosed lumbar strain, recommended modification of activities, heat treatment for the back, and an MRI of the lower spine region.
MRI IMAGING FACTS
Our injured client had an MRI and went for a follow up visit with the orthopedist to discuss the results. The MRI revealed a herniated disc.
PHYSICAL RECOVERY FACTS
Our injured client followed up with the orthopedist and continued physical therapy. Although his face and head injuries received during the car crash went away, the client continued to complain of pain to his back.
Our client was transported to the hospital by ambulance from the scene of the accident. In addition, he continued to treat for severe pain in his back. Our client never fully recovered from the accident. However, the only asset the other driver owned was a minimal liability insurance policy.
Based on the above, it was our position that our injured out-of-state car accident client was entitled to substantial money damages for his pain and suffering, which continue to the present day. The other driver only had a minimum insurance policy. Our injured client desired a fast settlement of the claim. He instructed the injury lawyers at Martin + Colin, P.C. to obtain the best result possible very quickly. In this situation, the best possible result was the entire policy. Within three months of the accident, we were able to settle the case to the satisfaction of the client.
CALL US NOW AT (914) 771 7711 AND LET US APPLY OUR EXPERTISE TO YOUR CASE.
Recently, we represented a driver who was injured when a new driver traveling in the opposite direction failed to yield, and instead made a left turn directly in front of our client’s vehicle, causing the two-car collision.
However, if someone traveling in the opposite direction makes a left turn directly in front of your vehicle, that other driver is responsible for the accident. Your vehicle has the right of way. That other driver should not have driven across your lane of traffic until after your vehicle has passed.
Here is an example of the motion we filed for a ruling, prior to the start of trial, that the driver of the other vehicle was solely responsible for the accident, and that our driver was entirely free of fault.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ——————————————————————-x EMILIO FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT –against–
MARTA TAVAREZ, Index No.: 043850/2017 Defendant. ——————————————————————-x
C O U N S E L O R S:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affidavit of EMILIO FERNANDEZ, sworn to on the 5th day of October, 2017, the affirmation of KATHERINE ORTIZ dated October 5, 2017, the exhibits attached thereto, and upon all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move before this Court at a Central Compliance Part at the Courthouse located at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., White Plains, New York 10601 on the 30th day of October, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard:
For an order pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212 granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, as to liability, for an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney’s fees to abide this motion, and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.
The above-entitled action is for personal injuries. This action is on the trial calendar.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Section 2214(b) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, all answering papers, if any, shall be served at least seven (7) days before the return date of this motion.
Dated: White Plains, New York October 5, 2017
MARTIN + COLIN, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Emilio Fernandez
_________________________ By: KATHERINE ORTIZ Office + Post Office Address: 44 Church Street White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 771-7711 phone (914) 206-3619 fax [email protected]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ——————————————————————-x EMILIO FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT
MARTA TAVAREZ, Index No.: 043850/2017 Defendant. ——————————————————————-x
KATHERINE ORTIZ, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury:
The law firm of MARTIN + COLIN, P.C. is the attorney of record for the plaintiff. As the deponent, I am thoroughly familiar with the facts and circumstances herein based upon my review of the contents of the plaintiff’s file maintained by this office.
I make this affirmation in support of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. The following exhibits are attached:
Exhibit “A”- Summons, Complaint, Answer, Bill of Particulars;
Exhibit “B”- Accident Report;
Exhibit “C”- Defendant MARTA TAVAREZ deposition transcript;
Exhibit “D”- Yuknek v Scavo, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (September 2003).
For all the reasons that follow, Plaintiff asks that this motion be granted in all respects.
The parties were involved in a two-car accident which caused Mr. Fernandez to suffer serious personal injuries. Plaintiff in this case, i.e., Mr. Fernandez, seeks reasonable and fair compensation for his serious personal injuries sustained as a result of the defendant’s negligent ownership and operation of a motor vehicle. In summary, defendant made a left turn into plaintiff’s vehicle while attempting to enter the Saw Mill River Parkway from Yonkers Avenue. See Accident Report attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his left shoulder, requiring surgery, as well as neck, back, head and knee pain.
The other driver in this two-car accident, MARTA TAVAREZ, testified that on October 12, 2014 she was driving her mother and aunt to their place of work (Ex. “C” p.9), and that she had only started driving approximately one month before the accident. (Ex. “C” p. 11). Defendant testified that she was traveling on Yonkers Avenue in the direction toward the Saw Mill River Parkway and was in the turn only lane with one vehicle ahead of her. (Ex. “C” p. 15). The driver of the offending vehicle testified that as she approached the intersection the light in her direction was green, that she saw the car in front of her turn, and that she followed the car ahead of her and turned right after them. (Ex. “C” p. 16). She offending driver testified that she did not see any vehicles in the opposite direction on the other side of the intersection. (Ex. “C” p. 16). The driver of the other vehicle testified that it was not dark outside, and that the sun was starting to come out. (Ex. “C” p. 16). She testified that at the intersection where the accident occurred the roadway was flat. (Ex. “C” p. 18). Defendant testified that as she approached the intersection she did not stop at all before she made the left turn towards the Saw Mill Parkway. (Ex. “C” p. 19). The other driver testified that when she observed the damage to the vehicles at the scene of the accident she observed the front of her vehicle was “crashed” and the driver’s side of the plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged. (Ex. “C” p. 23). She testified that she called 911 and told them that “I was making a left turn to go into the Saw Mill and that I collided with the other vehicle.” (Ex. “C” p. 24).
Proof that defendant’s vehicle came over to the wrong side of the road and caused damage makes out a prima facie case and puts upon the party responsible for the actions of that vehicle the burden of coming forward with an explanation. Lyons v. DeVore, 48 A.D.2d 943, 368 N.Y.S.2d 887 (3d Dept., 1975), affd 39 N.Y.2d 971, 387 N.Y.S.2d 108 (1976); Pfaffenbach v White Plains Exp. Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1966); Fox v Lyte, 143 A.D.2d 390, 520 N.Y.S.2d 432 (2d Dept. 1988); Fagle v. Bell, 65 A.D.2d 887, 410 N.Y.S.2d 422 (3d Dept. 1978); Novis v Sheinkin, 60 A.D.2d 623, 400 N.Y.S.2d 161 (2d Dept. 1977); Bergeron v Hyer, 55 A.D.2d 417, 353 N.Y.S.2d 767 (4th 1977); Simmons v. Stiles, 43 A.D.2d 417, 353 N.Y.S.257 (3d Dept. 1974); Manzi v Grand Ave Cab Co., 42 A.D.2d 607, 345 N.Y.S.2d 120 (2d Dept. 1973); Lewis v. Rivers, 41 A.D.2d 667, 340 N.Y.S.2d 671 (2d Dept. 1973); Stafford v. Mussers Potato Chips, 39 A.D.2d 831, 333 N.Y.S.2d 139 (4th Dept. 1972).
Plaintiff is not required to anticipate that a vehicle, or that a portion of a vehicle, traveling on the opposite side of the road will cross over into oncoming traffic.
“A driver is not obligated to anticipate that a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic. Such an event constitutes a classic emergency situation, thus implicating the “emergency doctrine” (see Lyons v. Rumpler, 254 A.D.2d 261, 262, 678 N.Y.S.2d 142; Williams v. Econ, 221 A.D.2d 429, 430, 633 N.Y.S.2d 392; Greifer v. Schneider, 215 A.D.2d 354, 356, 626 N.Y.S.2d 218; Gaeta v. Morgan, 178 A.D.2d 732, 734, 576 N.Y.S.2d 962; Moller v Lieber, 156 A.D.2d 434, 435, 548 N.Y.S.2d 552). “
The other driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1141 and 1163(a) when she made a left turn directly into the path of Plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant was negligent in failing to see that which, under the circumstances, she should have seen and in crossing into the plaintiff’s lane of traffic when it was hazardous to do so. Yuknek v. Scavo, Supreme Court Nassau County (2003), attached hereto as Exhibit “D”, citing Russo v. Scibetti, 298 A.D.2d 514 (2d Dept 2002); Agin v Rehfeldt, 284 A.D.2d 352 (2d Dept. 2001); Stiles v. County of Dutchess, 278 A.D.2d 304 (2d Dept. 2000). Plaintiff, who had the right of way, was entitled to anticipate that the defendant would obey the traffic laws which required her to yield and to turn only when able to do so with reasonable safety, see Yuknek v. Scavo, supra citing Cenovski v. Lee, 266 A.D.2d 424 (2d Dept. 1999).
The other driver had a duty to see what was to be seen, namely, the plaintiff’s vehicle. Yuknek v Scavo, supra, citing Stiles v. County of Dutchess, supra, Zambrano v. Seok, 277 A.D.2d 312 (2d Dept. 2000). See also Hudson v. Goodwin, 272 A.D.2d 296 (2d Dept. 2000) and a driver is negligent where an accident occurs because he or she has failed to see that which through proper use of his or her senses he or she should have seen. Breslin v. Rudden, 291 A.D.2d 471 (2d Dept. 2002). In this case, defendant failed to see plaintiff’s approaching vehicle and failed to yield the right of way. Yuknek v. Scavo citing Szcotka v. Adler, 291 A.D.2d 444 (2d Dept. 2002).
Based on the above, partial summary judgment as to liability should be granted against defendant and in favor of plaintiff. Defendant’s first affirmative defendant, sounding in comparative fault and culpable conduct of the plaintiff must also be dismissed for the same reasons.
There has been no prior application made for the relief herein sought.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this motion be granted in its entirety, and that such other and further relief be granted as to this Court seems just and proper, including the costs of this motion.
That’s it! It was a car accident caused by the other driver making a left hand turn across traffic immediately in front of our driver. As a result of the dangerous turn, a collision occurred and our driver suffered personal injuries. What happened after the motion was filed? The insurance company for the other driver settled the case!
The experienced accident lawyers at Martin + Colin, P.C. applied their combined expertise handling similar car crash cases and, at our client’s request, successfully convinced the other driver’s insurance company that a settlement was better than a ruling that the other driver was liable as a matter of law.
Our experienced personal injury and auto accident lawyers can be contacted by phone at (914) 771 7711 or online at martincolin.com If you have been hurt in an accident due to the negligence of another person or firm, Martin + Colin, P.C. may be able to help. Please call (914) 771 7711 or email using the ‘Contact Us’ form on this webpage.
Call us now at (914) 771 7711 and let us apply our expertise to your case.
Today we begin our 2015 series of helpful articles on Brain Injury.
Understanding the Basics of Brain Injury Starts With Anatomy
In order to understand the significance of any traumatic brain injury, a basic understanding of anatomy and physiology is certainly helpful. If we want to comprehend the extent of any bodily injury and repair process, one must first look at typical structure and function.
The brain is broken down into various regions, sometimes referred to as lobes, and connects to the spinal cord by way of the brain stem. Scientific and medical professionals may also refer to specific areas of the brain, such as the hippocampus, amygdala, and cerebellum, as individual structures that serve a more specific purpose in terms of function.
The organ itself is suspended in a viscous liquid known as cerebral spinal fluid. Although the term ‘float’ has been used to describe how the brain sits within the cranial cavity, the brain is held into place by various connective tissues called meninges. This prevents movement of our brains during regular to moderate activity. In the event of a traumatic injury, excessive force can cause the brain to suddenly jar, jerk, or just harshly move around within the skull.
The brain is fed by a myriad of different arteries and vessels that wrap around the outermost areas of the brain, as well as weave into and through the innermost structures. This system delivers imperative oxygen, as well as other nutrients to all areas of the brain. In a healthy brain, blood never crosses into the brain matter, but rather smaller molecules can pass through the artery membranes and diffuse across, through, and around the neuronal cells of the brain matter itself. Blood leaking into the brain is an immediate indication of injury. There are four primary sources that feed blood into the cerebral areas, the right and left vertebral arteries, as well as the right and left carotid arteries, and the smaller intraneuronal arteries branch off from these. Depending on the location of a traumatic brain injury, blood flow can be hindered to a significant portion of the brain if it occurs near one of these larger structures.
A healthy brain is comprised of various neuronal cell types that operate by sending electrical signals from one cell to another. Thick nerves that send primary signals are called cranial nerves, and these are surrounded by a plethora of smaller nerves that penetrate and extend throughout the brain, eventually connecting to the brain stem. Thousands of these cells create an incredibly complex highway of transmission lines that not only use charged ions to communicate, but also interact through the release, fluctuation, and binding of various hormones, also known as neurotransmitters. Almost every bodily function requires a complicated series of electrical transmissions to and from multiple areas within the brain. The most amazing part about this type of communication is the fact that it takes only a fraction of a second for our brains to send and process these signals.
Unlike bones or skin, our brains have a limited number of cells from which they can derive certain reparative functions. From birth, we have a very exclusive pool of stem cells that can successfully grow into functioning neurons. This is precisely why serious brain damage from some traumatic injuries can sometimes be irreversible.
Despite a limited number of neuron-intended stem cells, this organ has an incredible ability to grow and change. Neural plasticity is the term used to describe the brain’s ability to adapt to certain situations. For example, repeated stimulation and electrical activity in a given location might prompt the growth and development of new neurons. Some brains are also capable of rerouting certain signals in the event of injury or atypical development. Plasticity varies from one individual to the next, so making a specific prediction about repair or function improvement following a brain injury can be somewhat of a challenge.
Now that you have a general understanding of brain anatomy and its ability to function, we can dive into the specifics of what exactly happens during a traumatic injury, how that might affect overall human function, and how the brain might attempt to repair itself.
The car accident and personal injury lawyers at Martin + Colin, P.C., handle brain injury cases. If you have been hurt in an accident due to the negligence of another person, our attorneys may be able to help. Please email us by using the ‘Contact Us’ form on this page.
The personal injury lawyers at Martin + Colin, P.C. have settled a lawsuit arising out of a car accident on Bronx Park East near Allerton Avenue in Bronx, New York.
The plaintiff, a resident of the City of New York, Borough of the Bronx, was traveling alone on Bronx Park East at the intersection of Allerton Avenue, intending to make a right turn onto the Mosholu Parkway. As he sat in his vehicle waiting to make the right turn, our client’s vehicle was struck from behind by another car. The impact jolted our client and knocked him back and forth inside his car.
The injured car accident victim sought immediate medical treatment at Lawrence Hospital complaining of lower back stiffness, neck pain and shoulder pain. He was evaluated, x-rays were taken and he was released.
For the next five months, our injured client suffered in silence, hoping the pain would go away and that he would recover from the accident. However, the pain persisted and became increasingly unbearable. The victim injured in the car crash had never complained of back pain prior to this accident. Eventually, he sought additional medical treatment. A neurologist immediately observed muscle spasms in the patient’s back, decreased range of motion and also suspected radiating pain. Treatment with physical therapy was recommended and started. When continued physical therapy treatment failed to return our injured client to his pre-accident physical condition, the lawsuit was commenced.
Injuries such as those suffered in this case often result in settlements ranging from $5,000 to $75,000, depending on the specific facts of each case. In this lawsuit, the settlement amount was reduced because the victim sustained painful injuries during the car accident but did not receive medical treatment (except for one brief emergency room visit) for several months immediately following the accident. Another factor reducing the settlement amount was the lack of objective medical testing confirming the injured accident victim’s complaints.
As stated in a prior post, jury verdicts for injuries causing low back pain, corroborated by objective medical testing, can exceed $100,000.00. And let’s be clear: the lack of objective medical testing does not mean a lack of pain. However, the lack of objective medical test results to corroborate an injured person’s complaints can, and often does, reduce the amount of money an insurance company is willing to pay to settle a claim.
The injury lawyers at Martin + Colin, P.C. leveraged their expertise handling similar cases and successfully convinced the other driver’s insurance company that a good settlement was better than an unfavorable jury verdict; and as this case was venued in Bronx County, a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff could have cost the insurance company a much larger sum of money. However, our client preferred the certainty of settlement rather than the risk of trial, and during settlement negotiations, we were able to settle the case to the satisfaction of the client.
Call us now at (914) 771 7711 and let us apply our expertise to your case.