MSGm Firm page
McDowell Shaw Garcia & Mizell logo
McDowell Shaw Garcia & Mizell logo
McDowell Shaw Garcia & Mizell logo

Recent Trial Results

Case Name: Gonsalves v. Sok

Parties: Plaintiff represented at trial by Alan Laskin Esq. of the Law Offices of Alan Laskin. Defendant was represented at trial by Sumair S. Sandhu and William T. McLaughlin, of McDowell Shaw Garcia & Mizell.

Venue: San Joaquin Superior

Brief summary of facts (that includes all parties, accident facts, injuries claimed, special damages claimed, etc.):
On September 18, 2013, Plaintiff was traveling in stop-and-go traffic in her 2005 Acura TL when her vehicle was rear ended by a 1993 Lexus 300 driven by the Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that her vehicle made contact with a vehicle in front. Photographs of Plaintiff’s vehicle show dents, some bumper displacement, and scuff marks. There is no visible damage to the front of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant’s vehicle shows some minor dents and a broken headlight. Plaintiff did not request any medical attention, and after exchanging information, drove her vehicle from the accident scene. Plaintiff claimed injury to her neck, back, and hips, with constant pain. The following day, Plaintiff went to a local ER and the same day retained an attorney. Plaintiff shortly thereafter began chiropractic care . Thereafter Plaintiff received referrals for pain management, MRI’s, and orthopedic surgical evaluation. Plaintiff’s alleged special medical damages totaled $53,000 and she argued she will need hip surgery with future costs and related care totaling approximately $175,000. 

Key arguments made by each party:
Plaintiff claimed following the accident, she had ongoing neck, back, and hip pain. Plaintiff’s lien based physicians testified the accident caused ongoing pain complaints requiring pain injections in the neck and hips. Plaintiff also alleged that the accident caused a hip condition called “snapping hips” which would require surgical intervention. Defendant argued Plaintiff’s had not met her burden of proof in demonstrating that the complaints were caused by the subject accident. Instead, all the complaints were degenerative age related wear/tear in nature. Furthermore, Plaintiff treatment was attorney directed intended to drive up Plaintiff’s special damages claim. Defendant’s IME doctor testified he reviewed Plaintiff’s MRI studies and records, but no indication of any orthopedic findings that would require anything beyond conservative physical therapy, not lasting beyond three months. Defendant’s hip specialist testified that Plaintiff’s alleged condition was not due to a traumatic event but rather a result of ongoing wear/tear. Defendant’s radiologist testified Plaintiff’s MRI showed no signs of a traumatic  injury to Plaintiff’s spine or hips. Plaintiff’s MRI showed normal degenerative changes based upon age related wear and tear, but not accident related injuries.

Settlement Offers: Plaintiff’s CCP 998 offer: San

Venue: $125,000; Defendant’s CCP 998 offer: $15,000

Length of trial: 9 days

Amount plaintiff asked jury to award: $491,000.00

Whether liability was disputed: No

Verdict: Plaintiff awarded $16,788

Verdict Date: July 27, 2018

How long jury deliberated: 6 hours

Case Name: Degrandis v. Prasad, et al.

Verdict: Defense verdict; 11-1

Verdict Date: February 10, 2017

Settlement Demand: $25,000.00 at Mandatory Settlement Conference

998’s: Defendant’s $1,501.00

Venue: Sacramento Superior

Brief summary of facts (that includes all parties, accident facts, injuries claimed, special damages claimed, etc.):
On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff was traveling in stop-and-go traffic in her 2007 Dodge Caravan.  Plaintiff briefly came to a stop, and was rear ended by a 2006 Honda Accord driven by the Defendant while driving “less than 10 mph”. Photographs show scratches to the Plaintiff’s rear bumper from the impact.  Plaintiff did not request any medical attention, and after providing information to the police, drove her vehicle from the accident scene, and dropped her passengers off at home. 
Plaintiff claimed injury to her neck, back, shoulder, right upper extremity, with constant pain. Her lien based treatment began with a chiropractic referral from her auto shop mechanic. Leading into trial, Plaintiff’s alleged special medical damages totaled $34,587.00 and she argued she will need arthroscopic surgery on her torn labrum with future surgery costs totaling approximately $32,000-$52,000.

Key arguments made by each party:
Plaintiff claimed following the accident, she was unable to lift her daughter at all, had 10/10 pain in her right shoulder, needed drugs to sleep, and was generally unable to use her right arm at all.  Plaintiff’s lien based physician testified the accident caused a right shoulder impingement, a labrum tear in Plaintiff’s right shoulder, and nerve issues including myelopathy due to issues with her cervical spine.  Plaintiff’s physician testified she was injured in the accident, and that the lack of acute pain was not indicative of her injuries.
Defendants’ argued Plaintiff’s lien based treatment and charges were “fake” bills intended to drive up Plaintiff’s special damages claim.  Defendants’ IME doctor testified he reviewed Plaintiff’s MRI studies and her right shoulder showed degenerative changes, but no indication of an accident related labrum tear.  He was unable to exam Plaintiff’s right shoulder due to alleged pain, indicative of malingering based on his experience successfully examining other patients with much more serious shoulder injuries/tears.
Defendants’ radiologist testified Plaintiff’s MRI showed no signs of a traumatic  injury to Plaintiff’s cervical spine or right shoulder.  Plaintiff’s MRI showed normal degenerative changes based upon age related wear and tear, but not accident related injuries.

Length of trial: 7 days

How long jury deliberated: 1 ½ to 2 hours

Amount plaintiff asked jury to award: $40,000 plus pain and suffering

Amount (if any) defendant asked jury to award:  $500

Whether liability was disputed: Yes

Trial counsel: Plf.: Edward Schade; Def.: Phaidra Garcia; Joseph Kim

Anything else of interest:  The Court awarded Defendants with the entirety their section 1032 prevailing parties costs, and section 998 expert costs in the amount of $35,223.35 for plaintiff’s failure to accept Defendant’s prior 998 offer of $1,501.00.

Case Name: Corea v. Kidder

Venue: Placer County Superior Court, Case No. SCV0037617

Judge: Dept. 42, Hon. Charles Wachob, presiding.

Verdict Date: August 7, 2017

Parties: Plaintiff, Rene Corea, was represented at trial by Robert A. Carichoff and Daniel R. Del Rio, of the Law Offices of Del Rio & Carichoff, 2335 American River Drive, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95825. Defendant, John Kidder, was represented at trial by Sumair S. Sandhu and William T. McLaughlin, of McDowell Shaw, Garcia & Mizell, 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95834.

Insurance Carrier: Capital Insurance Group

Plaintiff’s Expert: Marc Maskowitz, M.D. (Pain Management); Ardavan Aslie, M.D. (Orthopedic Surgeon); John Martin (Vehicle Repair); Carol Hyland, M.A., M.S., C.L.C.P., C.D.M.S. (Medical Costs/Life Plan Planner).

Defense Expert: Laurence Neuman, P.E. (Accident Reconstruction); William Hoddick, M.D. (Radiologist); Anh Le, M.D. (Orthopedic surgeon);  Vicki Schweitzer, R.N., B.S.N., C.H.C.Q.M., C.P.C. (Medical Billings).

Verdict/Settlement: On May 22, 2017 the plaintiff served a CCP 998 offer in the amount of $500,000.00; the offer was renewed at trial just after closing arguments.  On June 19, 2017, the defendant served a CCP Offer for $135,000.00, which was followed on June 30 by a statutory offer of $225,000.00.

Result: Defense verdict.  Defendant was awarded costs in the amount of $16,625.04, which included expert witness fees pursuant to CCP 998.

Facts: Plaintiff, Rene Corea, claimed to have suffered significant, debilitating injuries to her neck and back as a result of being rear-ended by Defendant Gary Kidder on April 7, 2015.  Defendant admitted liability but disputed that the plaintiff suffered significant injuries and argued that, to the extent she suffered any injuries, the injuries were caused by a more significant rear-end accident that took place about 23 hours earlier (First Accident).

Plaintiff filed separate civil actions against the driver in the First Accident and Defendant Kidder.  The plaintiff also submitted a UIM claim to his own insurer.  Both civil actions and the UIM proceeding were consolidated into a single action.  However, prior to trial, the plaintiff settled with the driver in the First Accident for her $25,000 policy limit, and with his own insurer for his UIM policy limit of $75,000.  The trial proceeded only as to defendant Kidder.

At trial plaintiff's counsel argued that Defendant was a joint tortfeasor and therefore was liable for all economic damages whether caused by the First Accident or the second (subject) accident, and the plaintiff requested jury instructions on joint and several liability. The defense disputed the plaintiff's position and argued that, because the two accident were separate and distinct, the defendant could not, as a matter of law, be deemed to be a joint tortfeasor with the driver in the First Accident.  The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments, however the court nevertheless instructed the jury over the defense’s objection on multiple causes (CACI 431). 

Plaintiff attributed at least 50% of his harm and damages to the subject accident, arguing that the First Accident made her more susceptible to injury.  In support of his claim the plaintiff testified that the subject accident involved a significant impact and that he began to experience pain following it.  Plaintiff presented an automobile repair expert who testified that the frame of plaintiff's vehicle was bent as a result of the subject accident, and that the force needed to repair the frame was indicative of the subject accident involving a significant impact.

Plaintiff underwent chiropractic care for over a year. Plaintiff was also treated by a Pain Management Physician where he received multiple epidural and facet injections along with radiofrequency ablations. Plaintiff was referred to an orthopedic surgeon who recommended multi-level neck and back fusions along with disc replacement surgery. Plaintiff’s life care planner testified that past and future economic damages equaled approximately $2 million. As a result, Plaintiff requested a total award of $4.5 million.

Defense counsel argued that the plaintiff suffered little if any actual harm from the subject accident, and that, to the extent the plaintiff suffered any harm, the cost of past and future medical treatment would be less than $15,000.  The defense presented evidence that the defendant's vehicle only "clipped" the right rear side of plaintiff's vehicle, and that the plaintiff did not complain of any pain at the scene of the accident.  A defense accident reconstruction expert testified that the subject accident involved only a minor impact, as opposed to the First Accident that involved a moderate impact. The defense also presented the testimony of a radiologist and orthopedic surgeon, both of whom testified that there was no evidence that the plaintiff's neck and back complaints were attributable to the subject accident.  Finally, the defense presented an expert on the reasonable value of the plaintiff’s past and future treatment based on the Howell decision.

In closing argument, plaintiff's attorney argued that the defendant was responsible for at least 50% of the plaintiff’s injuries, and that plaintiff’s damages totaled around $5,000.000.00.  Defense counsel argued that, to the extent the plaintiff suffered any harm as a result of the subject accident, the total cost of the plaintiff’s past and future medical treatment would be no more than $15,000.00.

The jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning a unanimous defense verdict.

Case Name: Rekow v. Fay et. al,

Venue: San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC14540834

Judge: Dept. 606, Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng, presiding.

Verdict Date: January 26, 2017

Parties: Plaintiff, Christina Rekow, was represented at trial by Jonathan Saul Esq. of Jonathan Saul & Associates, 4020 Lennane Drive, Sacramento, CA 95834 Defendant, Jamie Padover, was represented at trial by Sumair S. Sandhu and William T. McLaughlin, of McDowell Shaw, Garcia & Mizell, 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95834.

Insurance Carrier: California Casualty Company

Length of Trial: 5 days

Plaintiff Expert:  Mark Levitt. (Accident Investigation)

Defense Expert:  Edward C. Fatzinger, Jr., MS, PE., Momentum Engineering (Accident Reconstruction)

Settlement: Plaintiff served a CCP 998 offer in the amount of $74,999.00; Defendant served a CCP Offer for $5,001.00.

Result: Defense verdict.  Defendant awarded costs in the amount $45,313.97.

Facts: This action arose out of a motorcycle versus motor vehicle incident that occurred on August 2, 2012, on interstate 280 in San Francisco. Plaintiff contended that Defendant, Jamie Padover, was at fault for the incident because he stuck his arm out his driver-side window and “flipped the bird” to the plaintiff’s former boyfriend, who was driving his motorcycle ahead of her. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s extended arm impeded her travel and that it distracted her so that she did not notice that her former boyfriend had slowed his motorcycle. The front wheel on Plaintiff’s motorcycle struck the back wheel of her former boyfriend’s motorcycle, causing her to lose control and crash. Plaintiff was taken from the scene by ambulance and admitted to the hospital, where she remained for six days with multiple fractures in her left leg, which required hardware to be inserted in her leg. Plaintiff’s medical bills exceeded $85,000.00. In addition to economic and non-economic damages, Plaintiff sought punitive damages against Defendant, arguing assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant contended that Plaintiff was solely responsible for the incident because she was travelling at an excessive speed for traffic conditions and that she travelling too close behind her former boyfriend’s motorcycle.

The trial was bifurcated so that liability could be tried first.  Upon the completion of the plaintiff’s case in chief, the court granted defense counsel’s motion for non-suit on the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.  Plaintiff subsequently withdrew her intentional tort claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Case Name: Kwong v. Alexander

Venue: Alameda County

Judge: Kimberly E. Colwell

Verdict Date: July 30, 2014

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell for defendants Maia Alexander and Mary Alexander

Insurance Carrier: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. for both defendants

Plaintiff’s Expert: Paul Slosar; M.D.; Orthopedic Surgery; San Francisco, CA called by Brian Graziani

Defense Expert: David Bradshaw; Physical Medicine; Castro Valley, CA

Verdict/Settlement Amount: $6,364

Breakdown of the Award:
$5,364 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost
$1,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain And Suffering

Case Description: On Sept. 13, 2008, at approximately 1:20 p.m., plaintiff Yat Yee Kwong, 68, a retiree, was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle being driven by her husband, plaintiff Chung Keen Kwong, on westbound Interstate 580 in Oakland. When they were just east of the I-80 interchange, their vehicle was involved in a five-car rear-end collision. The Kwong vehicle was the third vehicle in the chain-reaction collision. Mr. and Mrs. Kwong both claimed neck and back injuries.

Approximately two years later, Mrs. Kwong received facet injections to her neck and lower back. Her follow-up evaluations with the orthopedic surgeon showed that there was no sustained benefit from the injections. While Mrs. Kwong claimed she still experiences pain, as well as physical limitations, surgery has not been considered at the time of trial.

Mr. Kwong ultimately settled his personal injury claim shortly after the case was filed, while Mrs. Kwong's personal injury claim proceeded to a non-binding judicial arbitration, in which Mrs. Kwong was awarded $145,000. However, the defendants rejected the award, and the matter was scheduled for a jury trial.

Injury: Three days after the accident, Mrs. Kwong first presented to a chiropractor with complaints of neck and back pain. She received X-rays and treated with the chiropractor 21 times over the course of 2.5 months. Mrs. Kwong was then referred for an MRI of her lower back. Her chiropractor and an orthopedic surgeon reviewed the MRI, and the orthopedic surgeon recommended facet injections for the neck and lower back, if the pain did not subside and got worse.

Mrs. Kwong and Mr. Kwong sued the driver of a sport utility vehicle that allegedly caused the collision, Maia Alexander, and the registered owner of the SUV, Mary Alexander. The Kwongs alleged that Maia Alexander initiated the rear-end collision, causing their personal injuries, and that Mary Alexander was vicariously liable for Maia Alexander's actions. The Alexanders admitted liability for the accident.

The plaintiffs' expert orthopedic surgeon testified that the collision caused injury to Mrs. Kwong to a degree of reasonable medical probability, and that said harm was pain to the neck and lower back. Thus, the expert opined that all of the treatment received by Mrs. Kwong was reasonably medically necessary and that all costs alleged by Mrs. Kwong in association with her treatment were reasonable.

Thus, Mrs. Kwong sought recovery of $20,623 in past medical costs and $100,000 in damages for her pain and suffering.

Defense counsel disputed causation and Mrs. Kwong's alleged damages. Counsel argued that there was only $1,500 worth of property damage and that pictures of the Kwongs' vehicle showed little to no damage. Thus, defense counsel argued that the forces of the impact were not sufficient enough to cause any injury.

The defense's physical medicine expert testified that Mrs. Kwong was not harmed in the minor collision and that if Mrs. Kwong was injured, than she only suffered a mild soft-tissue injury that would have resolved on its own over the course of one or two months.

Defense counsel argued that since Mrs. Kwong's attorney referred her to the doctors for treatment and evaluation, this was an attorney-directed and orchestrated case and, thus, not to be believed. Counsel contended that Mrs. Kwong's MRI showed only an age-appropriate degenerative condition and no traumatically-induced abnormalities. Counsel also contended that Mrs. Kwong's only abnormal finding on the physical examination performed by her orthopedic surgeon was pain to palpation.

Thus, defense counsel asked the jury to render a defense verdict, arguing that the accident did not cause any injury to Mrs. Kwong. In response, Mrs. Kwong claimed that she did have as pre-existing, degenerative condition of the spine, which made her more susceptible to an injury than a person without such a condition. However, she claimed she had no history of spinal treatment before the collision.

Case Name: Buckley v. Sybrian

Venue: Santa Clara County

Judge: William Monahan

Verdict Date: June 3, 2014

Trial Counsel: Philip A. Pereira for Defendant Doris Sybrian Chris Wood/Larry Phan of Dreyer, Babich for Plaintiff Andrew Buckley

Insurance Carrier: California Casualty Indemnity Exchange

Plaintiff’s Expert: Nguyen Ky, Podiatrist in San Jose

Defense Expert: Bruce Lehnert, Podiatrist in Redwood City

Breakdown of the Award:
$68 lost income
$480 past medical expenses
$1,275 lost income
$13,000 future medical expenses
$16,000 pain and suffering
$15,000 future pain and suffering

Plaintiff’s Experts: David Chan, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, Sacramento, CA; Pasquale Montesano, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, Sacramento, CA; Chad Sandstrom, D.C., Chiropractor, Elk Grove, CA

Case Description: On February 3, 2012, the 86-year-old defendant was involved in a minor rear-end accident on San Tomas Expressway in San Jose. As she and the car in front of her were pulling over to the right shoulder, with their flashers on, 22-year-old Andrew Buckley approached the accident in the far right lane at approximately 40 mph. The plaintiff was unable to stop in time and struck the rear of the defendant’s vehicle.

Liability had to be conceded because the defendant suffers from dementia. In that regard, she was unable to participate at all in the Trial. Additionally, she had been found at fault in the police report.

The plaintiff went to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and it was determined that he had a broken big toe on his left foot. Specifically, he had suffered a fracture of the interphalangeal joint. He was taped, given crutches and told to follow up with a podiatrist named Bruce Naylor. He missed the following day of work at a retail leather store.

The plaintiff did not follow up with Dr. Naylor until March 20, 2012, roughly six weeks after the accident. He continued to complain of pain in his big toe, although the fracture was healing.

He saw Naylor again on June 27, 2012 and continued to complain of pain in his big toe. He asserted that the pain was hampering his rock-climbing activities. Dr. Naylor told the plaintiff that, if the pain continued to bother him, a fusion of the interphalangeal joint would be performed. The plaintiff was told to return in four to six weeks.

The plaintiff filed suit on August 20, 2012.

He did not seek any further medical attention until shortly after his deposition on May 1, 2013 when he saw Dr. Nguyen Ky. He had found Dr. Ky online and was interested in seeing him because he was purportedly the podiatrist for the Sharks professional hockey team, but this turned out to be false. Dr. Ky recommended an arthroplasty of the interphalangeal joint.

The plaintiff underwent an IME with Dr. Bruce Lehnert, who concurred with Dr. Naylor as to the fact that the appropriate surgery would be a fusion.

In his deposition, the plaintiff testified that the only activities hampered as a result of the accident were his rock-climbing, his ability to run and his ability to stand for long periods of time. At Trial, however, he and three witnesses asserted that, besides hampering his rock-climbing and running activities, the injury also prevented him from snowboarding, playing tag, playing catch, jumping on the trampoline, riding a bicycle and hiking.

After the plaintiff’s counsel learned that the defendant suffered from dementia and would not be contesting liability, a policy limits demand in the amount of $100,000 was served via a Section 998. Defense asked that the time for the 998 be extended for two weeks so that the matter could be considered. The plaintiff’s counsel refused. Counsel subsequently demanded $125,000. The defense served a 998 for $35,000.

At the Trial, the plaintiff and his expert asserted that he would need four surgeries throughout his life with respect to the fractured big toe on his left foot. They claimed that he would need an arthroplasty, followed by an implant in the interphalangeal joint about seven years later. Thereafter, he would need a fusion in his interphalangeal joint and eventually he would need another fusion in the lower metatarsal joint.

Over objections from the defense, the plaintiff was allowed to submit evidence of future medical costs, contrary to the Corenbaum case, through his expert, Carol Hyland. The future medical costs were asserted to be $101,000.

Dr. Lehnert testified that he could do the fusion for $5,000.

The turning point in the Trial probably came when Dr. Ky was impeached because he had been on probation continuously since 2006 and was not scheduled to be taken off probation until 2018. Podiatrist Ky was also impeached with respect to his claim that he was a doctor for the Sharks hockey team, which turned out to be a gross exaggeration.

The plaintiff’s counsel brought with him an audio-visual technician and there were a number of videos, photographs and PowerPoint presentations throughout the entire Trial.

During the Trial, the plaintiff testified that he had actually scheduled the arthroplasty surgery with Dr. Ky and that it was going to take place on June 25, 2014. It was pointed out that he could have had the surgery at any time after the accident, if in fact that was the proper surgery. The plaintiff asserted that he had been in school and unable to do so. He was impeached by the fact that, when Ky had recommended the surgery, the plaintiff had been out of school for six weeks on a break. (The plaintiff had been attending junior college part-time for the past four years.)

The plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $351,000 based upon $101,000 for future surgeries, lost income related to future surgeries of $50,000 and $200,000 in pain and suffering.

The defense argued that, if an award was to be rendered, it should be no more than $27,823, including $480 for past medical expenses (much of the expenses had been kept out via in limine motions), $68 for past wage loss, $5,000 for future surgery costs (assuming that the plaintiff would have a fusion as proposed by Dr. Lehnert), $1,275 in future wage loss for rehab time if the future went forward, $15,000 in past pain and suffering and $6,000 for future pain and suffering relative to the recuperation time following the fusion.

The jury deliberated for two hours and 15 minutes and then returned a verdict of $45,823, which included $480 for past medical expenses, $68 for lost income, $13,000 for future medical expenses, $1,275 for future lost income, $16,000 for past pain and suffering and $15,000 for future pain and suffering. The jury breakdown was 10 to 2.

The jury agreed that the appropriate surgery would be a fusion and that only one fusion would be necessary. However, they gave the plaintiff the cost of an arthroplasty because they said that, even though it was the wrong surgery, the decision was up to the plaintiff.

Case Name: Ringer v. O’Boyle

Venue: Sacramento County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction

Judge: Hon. Russell L. Hom

Case No.: 34-2011-00099779

Verdict Date: January 21, 2014

Gross Verdict: Defense Verdict; $0 awarded

Other Fees: $0 awarded to Plaintiff; Memorandum of Costs filed

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendants Christine O’Boyle and David O’Boyle; Alan M. Laskin, Esq. and Nathan J. Kabanuck, Esq., for plaintiff Anthony Ringer.

Plaintiff’s Experts: David Chan, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, Sacramento, CA; Pasquale Montesano, M.D., Orthopedic Surgery, Sacramento, CA; Chad Sandstrom, D.C., Chiropractor, Elk Grove, CA

Defense Experts: David Bradshaw, M.D., Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Castro Valley, CA

Case Description: Plaintiff Anthony Ringer filed this lawsuit alleging personal injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 19, 2009, at the intersection of Elk Grove Boulevard and Florin Road, in Elk Grove, California. Defendant, Christine O’Boyle, who was 16 years old at the time of the incident, was driving a 1997 Acura that was owned by her father, defendant David O’Boyle. Ms. O’Boyle rear-ended a 2006 Scion that was being driven by non-party Jakkrit Jarasjakkrawhal, pushing his vehicle into the rear of a 1983 Mercedes Benz 300 that was being driven by plaintiff Anthony Ringer.

Plaintiff had two passengers in his vehicle, Derek Norflett and his son Daquan Norflett who was approximately six to seven years old. They were on their way to McDonalds when the subject accident occurred. Plaintiff testified that there was a train crossing and approximately 20 to 25 cars were stopped in front of them. While completely stopped, plaintiff’s vehicle was rear ended by a Honda and pushed forward approximately one foot. Plaintiff felt one rear end impact. Plaintiff exited his vehicle and the driver of the Honda stated that he was hit by a lady behind him and pushed into the plaintiff’s vehicle.

When the accident occurred, Defendant, Christine O’Boyle had one passenger, her friend, Abby Britton, and they had left McDonalds restaurant, and were going to Ms. Britton’s aunt’s house when the incident occurred. Elk Grove Boulevard merges from two lanes into one lane and when she tried to merge, an individual to her left would not let her merge in, so she sped up and merged in front of that individual, and then stopped three to four feet behind an orange Scion. She was preoccupied with the individual behind her, and when she redirected her eyes forward, she incorrectly assumed that traffic was moving forward, and as a result, the front of her vehicle came into contact with the vehicle in front of her. Defendant was unsure of the exact speed of her vehicle when it contacted the vehicle in front of her, but she believes it was below five miles per hour.

No police or ambulance was called to the scene of the accident. No police report was ever prepared as a result of the subject accident.

Plaintiff admitted that the accident caused some paint to come off the rear bumper of his vehicle, but there was no other damage to the rear bumper. The repair estimate for plaintiff’s vehicle was only approximately $603.10. Defendant O’Boyle’s vehicle only sustained a bent license plate in the impact, with no repair estimate being necessary.

Description of Injuries / Damages: Plaintiff sustained no cuts and no bruises in the impact, and his body did not strike any part of the interior of the vehicle. He confirmed he did not notice any pain at all at the accident scene, and never requested an ambulance. He did not go to the emergency room on the day of the incident for any treatment.

Plaintiff stated he first sought medical care approximately 1-½ weeks after the accident when he went to Elk Grove Chiropractic. Plaintiff testified the chiropractor examined him, ordered x-rays, put ice on him, and put plaintiff on a heating pad rolling bed for his lower back pain. One of the chiropractor’s office assistants would do massages and the chiropractor would then crack the plaintiff’s back into place. Plaintiff treated with the chiropractor on a lien basis.

Plaintiff testified the chiropractor then referred him to Dr. Chan, as plaintiff started having neck pain a couple weeks after the accident. He was examined by Dr. Chan, who ordered x-rays and referred the plaintiff to Dr. Montesano.

Plaintiff testified he had approximately three to four visits with Dr. Montesano, who informed him there was something wrong with his back and his neck and that plaintiff needed surgery. Dr. Montesano also ordered additional films and an MRI. Plaintiff claimed that he is scared of surgery, and thus did not schedule the recommended surgery.

Plaintiff’s claimed medical specials totaled: $11,560.

Settlement Negotiations: A non-binding arbitration hearing took place on January 9, 2012, and the arbitrator was Mr. Hank Greenblatt, Esq. The arbitrator awarded plaintiff medical specials of $11,560.00, plus wage loss of $8,645.00, for an arbitration award of $20,205.00, as well as his costs. Plaintiff did not have automobile insurance, and thus pursuant to Proposition 213, was not entitled to any general damages. Defense rejected the arbitration award.

Settlement Demands: Plaintiff made an initial Demand in the sum of $20,000.00 in November 2011. Plaintiff made a Demand in the sum of $14,441.66 in February 2013.

Settlement Offers: Defendant served a CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in the sum of $1,111.00 in September 2011. Defendant served a CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in the sum of $1,501.00 in February 2013.

Trial Length: 1 ½ days (Expedited Jury Trial)

Jury Deliberation Length: 24 minutes

Jury Poll: 8-0

Other Post-Trial Motions: Memorandum for Costs filed by Defense in the amount of $12,823.04 is based upon the jury verdict ($0.00), which was less than the Defendant’s Offer to Compromise ($).

Case Name: Gomez v. Pfeiffer

Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction

Judge: Hon. Diana Ritchie

Case No.: 112CV225771

Verdict Date: January 6, 2014

Gross verdict: $11,297.30

Breakdown of Award: $8,297.30 in special damages and $3,000.00 in general damages for a total of $11,297.30

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia, Esq., McDowell Shaw Colman & Garcia for defendant Claire Pfeiffer; Edward D. Clements, Esq. for plaintiff Mario Gomez.

Plaintiff’s Experts: A. Stephen Genest, M.D., Neurosurgeon, Scotts Valley, CA

Defense Experts: Floyd David Fortuin, M.D., Neurologist, San Francisco, CA

Case Description: This claim arises as a result of the rear end automobile accident which occurred on June 5, 2010 at approximately 1:09 p.m., on Capitol Expressway in San Jose, California. On this date, the defendant, Claire Pfeiffer, was in the number 1 lane of westbound Capitol Expressway intending to get onto Highway 87. Plaintiff Mario Gomez, who was traveling in front of the defendant’s vehicle applied his brakes for a red light. The defendant applied her brakes but was unable to stop before rear ending plaintiff’s vehicle.

At the time of the accident, plaintiff was driving a 1997 Toyota 4-Runner which sustained $3,031.01 in damage. The defendant was driving a 1994 Honda which sustained severe front-end damage, totaling her vehicle.

Description of Damages / Injuries: At the accident scene, plaintiff complained of right-sided back pain. He claimed he had pain radiating down his right leg, which he rated as a 10/10. He was transported via AMR to Good Hospital in a cervical collar and head immobilizer. He did not exit the vehicle, but rather, summoned the police and an ambulance. He was transported from the scene to Good Samaritan Hospital via ambulance. Once at Good Samaritan Hospital, plaintiff had neck and low back pain. The exam revealed moderate soft tissue tenderness to plaintiff’s right mid and lower back. He also had mildly limited range of motion in his back. The remainder of the exam was normal. Lumbar x-rays were taken which were negative. He was given Vicodin and Ibuprofen and released. He was told if the pain persisted to follow-up with his primary care physician.

Plaintiff was treated in 2004 at Rhodes-Jacobs Chiropractic following a work related incident, at which time he injured his low back.

As such, within a few days, plaintiff presented to Rhodes-Jacobs Chiropractic complaining of neck and low back pain. He contends his low back pain was severe. He received relief from the chiropractic treatment for his neck, but not his low back. His treatment consisted of adjustments, ultrasound, electrical stimulation, exercises, and other manual therapy. He acknowledged the chiropractic assistant gave all treatment except the adjustments which were administered by a chiropractor. Plaintiff had about 25 chiropractic visits.

In that plaintiff’s low back complaints were continuing, plaintiff testified the chiropractor referred him for an MRI. The chiropractor also referred him to Dr. Genest, who examined him. Plaintiff’s chief complaint at the time was low back pain and bilateral leg pain. He claimed both legs were numb. The chiropractic treatment did not improve his complaints. He reported he was unable to sit or stand for long periods. He denied similar injuries. The exam revealed tenderness and positive straight leg raising at 90 degrees bilaterally. The remainder of the exam was normal. Dr. Genest recommended an EMG of both legs and continued conservative multi-disciplinary care to include chiropractic treatment. Dr. Genest wanted to see him back one month after the EMG.

On September 7, 2010, at the referral of the chiropractor, plaintiff underwent a lumbar MRI, Dr. Genest reviewed the MRI and indicated in his report that the MRI revealed disc herniations at L4 and L5.

Both Dr. Genest and the chiropractor then recommended an EMG and nerve conduction study which were performed by Dr. Pinckney.

On March 29, 2011, plaintiff underwent a nerve conduction study and EMG at First Call Diagnostics Medical Center, Inc. Michael Pinckney, M.D., administered the tests. It was Dr. Pinckney’s impression that the nerve conduction study was normal, but the EMG was abnormal suggestive of a lumbar radiculopathy primarily involving bilateral L4 and L5 nerve roots.

Plaintiff’s next visit after the nerve conduction study and EMG was not until July 2013 at which time he returned to see Dr. Genest. Dr. Genest ordered a further MRI which was also conducted in July 2013 which revealed an increased disc bulge. Dr. Genest recommended surgery, which plaintiff testified he would like to undergo given his severe back pain. Plaintiff had a follow-up visit to Dr. Genest on December 13, 2013. Note, surgery was not scheduled. Plaintiff testified as a result of the accident, he can no longer work as a T.V. cable installer as he cannot bend or climb into small spaces. Post-accident he switched jobs and works on an assembly line, which is a standing position. Plaintiff did not make a wage loss claim.

Prior to the accident, plaintiff acknowledged being a work related accident in 2004 at which time he injured his low back. He claims his preexisting low back pain resolved a couple of years after that accident and he denied any ongoing back pain at the time of the subject incident.

Plaintiff was involved in another accident in December 2011, but claims it was extremely mild and he did not exacerbate his low back pain. Plaintiff’s alleged medical specials totaled: $ $15,531.31; Plaintiff estimated future surgery to be $40,000.00.

Settlement Demands: Plaintiff never served a C.C.P. 998 Offer to Compromise. At the settlement conference in July 2013, plaintiff demanded $120,000.00. At trial, plaintiff asked the jury to award his past medical bills as set forth above and future medical bills in the amount of $40,000.00 for surgery, for a total award of $205,000.00.

Settlement Offers: Defendant served a CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in the sum of $7,501.00 in May 2013; At trial, defendant asked the jury to award $3,500.00.

Trial Length: 5 days; January 6-10, 2014

Jury Deliberation Length: 4½ hours

Jury Poll: 12-0

Case Name: Dailey v. Tomlinson

Venue: Sutter County Superior Court

Trial Counsel: Sumair Sandhu for Defendants, Tomlinson & Son Construction Inc. and RV Tomlinson Construction; Eric Abramson for Plaintiff, Deanna Dailey.

Insurance Company: Naxos Risk Insurance Services; James River Insurance Company

Trial Dates: November 13, 2013

Summary Judgment Hearing Date: September 30, 2013

Plaintiff’s Medical Specials: $2.8 Million

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff initially demanded $6.5 million at mediation which was reduced to a policy limit demand of $2 million via a CCP Section 998 Offer to Compromise.

Summary Judgment Verdict: On September 30, 2013, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Summary Judgment against Plaintiff. As such an order and judgment was granted in favor of Defendants.

Case Name: Singh v. Baca

Venue: San Francisco County Superior Court, Limited Jurisdiction

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia, Esq., Attorney for defendant Julian Baca; Brian Larsen, Esq. for plaintiff Surjit Simgh

Insurance Carrier(s): State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Settlement Date: November 6, 2012

Settlement Amount: Plaintiff agreed to dismissal of entire action in exchange for cost waiver.

Description of Case: This lawsuit arises out of a minor automobile accident which occurred on July 28, 2009 at approximately 3:00 p.m. on southbound Highway 101 near Cesar Chavez exit in San Francisco, California. On this date, the insured was traveling in the number three lane at approximately 55 mph. Plaintiff’s vehicle, a taxi cab, cut in front of the insured. The insured attempted to stop but, was unable to before he bumped into the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff alleged he sustained personal injuries in this motor vehicle accident and that his claimed medical treatment and claimed medical bills were medically reasonable and necessary due to the subject accident. Defense contested plaintiff’s alleged personal injuries from this motor vehicle accident and disagreed that plaintiff’s claimed medical treatment and claimed medical bills were medically reasonable and necessary and due to the subject accident.

Description of Injuries / Damages: Plaintiff alleged neck pain, low back pain, and left shoulder pain as a result of the accident. Despite these alleged injuries, plaintiff did not present for any medical or hospital treatment even though he is a Kaiser member. Instead, at the referral of a fellow taxi driver whose name plaintiff cannot recall, plaintiff presented to Brentwood Chiropractic where he was seen by Dr. Naeem Patel. Plaintiff did not present to Brentwood Chiropractic until August 19, 2009, more than three weeks post-accident. At his deposition, plaintiff denied he was ever examined at Brentwood Chiropractic and claims the only treatment he received was electrical stimulation which was administered by an office assistant. Plaintiff was involved in three other motor vehicle accidents on 9/3/2009, 1/8/2010 and 4/8/2010 and sought treatment with Dr. Naeem Patel for each accident. Plaintiff’s medical specials totaled $3,950.

Result: Plaintiff agreed to dismissal of entire action in exchange for cost waiver.

Case Name: Kingston v. Gregori

Venue: Contra Costa County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction

Judge: Hon. Laurel S. Brady

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendant, David Gregori; William Ginsburg, Esq. for plaintiff Keith Kingston.

Insurance Carrier(s): State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Verdict/Settlement Date: August 1, 2012

Verdict/Settlement Amount: $14,421.59

Breakdown of Award: Past Economic Loss: Lost Earnings: $635.04; Medical Expenses: $5,786.55; Past Noneconomic Loss: $6,000.00; Future Noneconomic Loss: $2,000.00

Plaintiff Expert Witnesses: John Casey, M.D., Orthopedic & Sports Medicine, Modesto, CA 95350

Defense Expert Witnesses: William Hoddick, M.D., Radiologist, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Bruce McCormack, MD, Neurological & Spinal Surgery, San Francisco, CA 94115

Description of Case: Plaintiff Keith Kingston filed this lawsuit against defendant, David Gregori, alleging personal injury as the result of a motor vehicle incident that occurred on October 23, 2007, at approximately 3:45 p.m., on Balfour Road, in Brentwood, California. Defendant was driving a 2002 Chevy Silverado pick up truck. Plaintiff was driving a 1998 Ford Ranger truck that was owned by his employer, Loomis Fargo. Defendant was traveling along the roadway and a car began changing lanes into his, so he moved into the adjacent lane, where he then rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle which was stopped behind a line of cars. Plaintiff alleged he sustained personal injuries in this motor vehicle accident and that his claimed medical treatment, including percutaneous disc decompression surgery, and claimed medical bills were medically reasonable and necessary due to the subject accident. Defense contested plaintiff’s alleged personal injuries from this motor vehicle accident and disagreed that plaintiff’s claimed medical treatment and claimed medical bills were medically reasonable and necessary and due to the subject accident.

Description of Injuries / Damages: Plaintiff alleged that within two hours he began to develop a severe headache and low back pain, which got worse. The next morning, he also began to feel ringing in his ears, and his employer sent him to the company doctor at Sierra Occupational Services in Stockton. He was seen by a doctor and was told to follow up with his regular physician. Plaintiff then returned to John Muir Medical Center on October 29, 2009, to see his regular physician. He followed up at John Muir Medical Center, and began physical therapy, due to back pain radiating into his left thigh. His physicians at John Muir referred him to John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek for an injection into his low back, and also suggested that he be seen at Muir Orthopedic specialist. Plaintiff claimed that his treating doctor at Muir Orthopedics was Dr. Chang, who diagnosed plaintiff as having a lumbar disc herniation. He also noted that an MRI taken December 18, 2007 revealed bulging disc at L3-4 and L4-5, and he prescribed two low back injections which gave the plaintiff short term relief for approximately one month. Dr. Chang also prescribed physical therapy, which gave some help. Dr. Chang, noted in an April 15, 2008 report that after the two steroid injections to the back, it appeared that plaintiff’s radicular problems had likely resolved, and that plaintiff was able to do all activities, and he simply recommended a home exercise program.

However, plaintiff then subsequently started seeing Robert Caton, M.D. and Peter Goetsch, M.D., outside of his normal physicians at John Muir, and it appears that on July 11, 2008 Dr. Caton performed the plasma disc decompression at River Surgical Institute in Modesto. Plaintiff alleged that following the disc decompression, his low back pain went from an eight or nine on a ten scale to a three or four on a ten scale, and that his condition has improved. Plaintiff did not return for treatment from Dr. Caton or John Muir following the percutaneous disc decompression procedure. Plaintiff’s medical Specials totaled $68,000.00.

Other Comments: Counsel for plaintiff argued to the jury that plaintiff was clearly injured by the subject accident as the photographs depicted moderate damage. Furthermore, the medical records confirm the complaints of back and radiculopathy into the left leg. He therefore, asked the jury to award all medical bills in the total sum of $65,000.00 plus a wage loss and incidentals amounting to approximately $3,000.00 for total specials of $68,000.00. He then requested pain and suffering damages in a like amount ($68,000.00) plus an amount to compensate plaintiff for his daily pain.

Defense argued that plaintiff had not met his burden of proof in that he did not call any of the treating doctors from John Muir Medical Center to confirm that plaintiff had in fact suffered from radiculopathy. Defense argued that this was a key piece of evidence that had not been presented and, therefore, the jury instruction pertaining to stronger evidence available would apply and the testimony of Dr. Casey should be distrusted. Furthermore, defense argued the same jury instruction as to plaintiff’s failure to call Dr. Caton, the surgeon who performed the surgery as a witness. Defense emphasized the fact that the defense was required to call Dr. Caton to prove that the procedure was not reasonable and necessary. As to pain and suffering, it was the defense argument that there were no injuries at the scene of the accident, plaintiff never missed any time from work, never went to a hospital for treatment, took no pain medication, took a trip to Hawaii within one month of the accident and was attorney referred for the percutaneous disc decompression procedure. Based upon all these factors, we recommended that plaintiff be awarded the John Muir Medical Center medical bills ($4,800.00), his out of pocket expenses for that treatment ($990.00), and pain and suffering in the range of $5,000.00 to $10,000.00.

Settlement Demand: Plaintiff served a CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in the sum of $95,000.00 in November 2010.

Offer: Defendant served a CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in the sum of $23,001.00 in September 2010.

Trial Length: 8 days

Jury Deliberation Length: 4 hours

Jury Poll: 12-0

Other Post-Trial Motions: Memorandum for Costs filed by Defense. Because the verdict was less than the defendant’s Offer to Compromise, defendant can recover all costs incurred from the date of service of the offer and also all expert witness costs, subject to the Court’s discretion.

Case Name: Her v. State Farm

Venue: Fresno, CA – Uninsured Motorist Arbitration

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia, Esq., Attorney for Respondent State Farm Automobile Insurance Company; Claimants Shoua Her, Yaa Her and Chang Kou Her in pro per

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Arbitration date: March 30, 2012

Arbitrator: James Phillips, Esq.

Facts: This claim arises out of a rear-end automobile accident involving claimants and an adverse driver who was uninsured at the time of the accident. The accident occurred at First and Belmont Avenues in Fresno, California, on August 24, 2009 at approximately 3:15 p.m. At the time of the accident, claimant Shoua Her was driving a 2000 Toyota Tundra when it was rearended. In the vehicle as passengers were claimants Yaa Her and Chang Kou Her. The Tundra sustained $901.21 in damage. The adverse driver’s vehicle received moderate damage.

Claimant’s Medical Specials: All three claimants claimed similar injuries involving their neck and back. All presented to Heu Chiropractor the day after the accident on August 25, 2009 and received similar courses of treatment for their injuries. Treatment consisted of adjustments, massage, and ice packs. All were released from treatment in approximately three weeks. As a result of the accident, Shoua Her alleged he sustained medical bills totaling: $1,576.00; Chang Kou Her alleged medical bills totaling: $1,523.00; Yaa Her alleged medical bills totaling: $1,711.00.

Issues Presented: Respondent questioned the nature and extent of Claimants’ injuries from the accident and the reasonableness and necessity of the medical treatment allegedly received by Claimants. More specifically, Respondent questions whether Claimant Chang Her actually received all of the chiropractic treatment he claimed because the treatment records for all three Claimants are strikingly similar in all respects, including the type of treatment and the similar number of medical visits and dates of treatment. Further, Respondent challenged the Claimants’ right to receive special damages on the grounds there is no applicable insurance policy benefits coverage because Claimants were working within the course and scope of their employment at the time of the accident.

Arbitration Award: Award in favor of Respondent. Claimants received $0.

Award Breakdown: The claims of Shoua Her and Yaa Her were dismissed, as they failed to appear at the arbitration hearing. Claimant Chang Kou Her is not entitled to receive any general damages other than the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) previously paid by Respondent to Claimant and his counsel.

Case Name: Hessel v. Shibamoto

Venue: Sacramento County Superior Court, Hon. Judy Holzer Hersher

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendant Reizo Shibamoto; Richard L. Sheppard III, Esq. for plaintiff Desiree Hessel.

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Expert Witnesses: Defense: William Hoddick, M.D. – Radiologist; Bruce McCormack, M.D. - Neurosurgery and Orthopedic Surgery. Plaintiff: John Casey, M.D. - Orthopedic Surgery.

Verdict/Settlement Date: 2/23/2012

Facts: This lawsuit arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on February 13, 2008 on Highway 99 in Sacramento County. Plaintiff was driving a 1997 Honda Accord in heavy stop and go traffic in the middle lane and stopped suddenly, and as a result, defendant, who was driving a 1999 Toyota Camry came into contact with the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle, and plaintiff then went into the right lane where her vehicle was grazed by non-party Jesus Gonzalez’s 1994 Oldsmobile. Plaintiff alleged she sustained personal injuries in this motor vehicle accident, and that her claimed medical treatment and claimed medical bills were medically reasonable and necessary due to the subject accident. Defense contested plaintiff’s alleged personal injuries from this motor vehicle accident, and disagreed that plaintiff’s claimed medical treatment and claimed medical bills were medically reasonable and necessary and due to the subject accident. Primary issue presented by the case was the validity of the percutaneous disc decompression procedure and the related costs.

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff Demanded Policy Limits of $100,000.00; Prior to litigation, State Farm Insurance offered plaintiff $90,000.00, which plaintiff denied; Arbitration award: $12,683.00 denied by plaintiff.

Verdict Amount: $28,000.00

Breakdown of Award: $3,000.00 for past medical bills; $25,000.00 for past pain and suffering; $0 awarded for percutaneous disc decompression surgery.

Case Name: Tan v. Hertz, et al.

Venue: San Francisco County Superior Court

Trial Counsel: Marissa M. Nebenzahl, Esq., attorney for defendant The Hertz Corporation

Insurance Company: Hertz Claim Management Corporation

Jury Verdict Date: November 2011

Facts: Plaintiff sued The Hertz Corporation and the renter of one of its vehicles for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. The Hertz Corporation moved for summary judgment based on the Graves Amendment, which provides that a vehicle rental agency is not liable for personal injuries that occur as a result of negligence by a lessee of a vehicle.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: $1,975.00

Settlement Negotiations: None.

Verdict: Summary judgment for defendant The Hertz Corporation.

Case Name: D'Amoun v. Lynch, et al

Venue: Alameda County Superior Court, Unlimited Jurisdiction

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Irene Lynch; James Waite, Esq., Attorney for Defendants Asif Noori and Action Cab Company; Leeds Disston, Esq. & Christine Chourney, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff Vancois D'Amoun.

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for Defendant Irene Lynch; CNA for defendants Asif Noori and Action Cab.

Jury Verdict date: October 31, 2011

Facts: This lawsuit arises out of an extremely minor automobile accident which occurred on July 10, 2007 on eastbound Interstate 80 in Alameda County. According to the insured, she was traveling on this stretch of highway in the area commonly referred to as the MacArthur Maze. On the date in question, defendant, Ms. Lynch was traveling behind a vehicle being driven by co-defendant Asif Noori (dba: co-defendant Action Cab). Plaintiff was the front seat passenger in co-defendant Noori’s vehicle. According to the Ms. Lynch, traffic ahead slowed and came to a stop. She in turn applied her brakes but was unable to avoid bumping the rear of Mr. Noori’s vehicle. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was on his way home from a doctor’s visit pertaining to a prior industrial injury. Action Cab was retained by plaintiff’s employer for medical transport.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: Plaintiff alleged the subject accident exacerbated an array of physical injuries he sustained as a result of a 1997 work-related accident for which he was continuing to treat for up until July 10, 2007. Specifically, he alleges the subject accident exacerbated his headaches, neck pain, knee pain, back pain. He claimed it took 9-14 months for him to return to his pre-accident physical status. He also alleged the accident caused a new injury consisting of internal bleeding requiring a blood transfusion wherein he was given two pints of blood, as well as a Mallory-Weiss tear. At the time of the subject accident, plaintiff was considered within the course and scope of his employment with PG&E. As a result of the accident, plaintiff alleges he sustained medical bills of $96,204.04. PG&E paid $30,557.50 of this amount and discounted $66,646.54 of this amount. PG&E filed a Notice Lien Claim in this action for $30,557.50.

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff originally served a §998 Offer to Compromise for Ms. Lynch’s policy limits of $100,000, which expired in 2009. On October 14, 2011, plaintiff served §998 Offer to Compromise on Ms. Lynch for $19,999.00. Ms. Lynch served a §998 Offer to Compromise on plaintiff for a cost waiver in exchange for a dismissal.

Verdict: Defense.

Case Name: John Doe v. Motorcycle Manufacturer, et al. (All names have been removed to protect confidentiality)

Trial Counsel: Paula M. Shaw for defendant, Motorcycle Dealership

Insurance Company: Federated Mutual Insurance Company

Verdict Date: September 2010

Verdict Amount: n/a – Defense.

Facts: Plaintiff, John Doe, visited a motorcycle dealership and after shopping for two hours, purchased a vehicle. During the purchasing process, plaintiff and salesperson at dealership observed the motorcycle for any “blemishes” and the salesperson instructed the plaintiff on certain operating procedure, specific to the motorcycle. During this time, the salesperson and plaintiff not only observed the motorcycle for any blemishes of any type, but it was at this time that the salesperson instructed plaintiff on some issues related to operating the motorcycle including, but not limited to, starting the motorcycle, operating the lights and security system. While at the dealership, plaintiff was able to become familiar with the intricacies of the motorcycle and reviewed the owner’s manual. Thereafter, at plaintiff’s request, plaintiff was allowed to start the motorcycle and drive it around the parking lot to become comfortable with the motorcycle. After riding the motorcycle around the parking lot, plaintiff shut off the motorcycle and then attempted to re-start the motorcycle. Plaintiff alleged it was at this time that he was unable to locate neutral in order to re-start the motorcycle and was instructed by the salesperson that if he was unable to locate neutral, he could start the motorcycle by placing the motorcycle in first gear and squeezing the clutch completely and then starting the motorcycle. This allegation of being provided such instruction disputed by the motorcycle salesperson. Following the completion of the final paperwork, which included plaintiff signing a document confirming he had received the owner’s manual for the motorcycle, plaintiff drove the motorcycle away.

Four days after plaintiff had purchased the motorcycle, plaintiff chose to move the motorcycle without following the implicit instructions found in the owner’s manual. In order to move the motorcycle this short distance, plaintiff claims he was straddling the motorcycle (does not recall if both of his feet were on the ground) and, due to having difficulty locating neutral, placed the motorcycle in first gear, pulled the clutch lever in completely and, with the kickstand down, pushed the starter button to start the motorcycle. Plaintiff then describes that the motorcycle unexpectedly “lurched” forward causing the motorcycle to come off the kickstand and fall to the left onto both of plaintiff’s lower extremities resulting in broken bones to both of his feet as well as ligamentous damage.

Medical Damages: As a result of the motorcycle falling on plaintiff’s lower extremities, he suffered crush-type fractures to his right and left feet as well as ligament damage. The injuries to plaintiff’s feet had healed at the time of trial. The injuries to plaintiff’s lower extremities healed without any type of surgery. Plaintiff also claimed some type of neurological complaint related to the use of crutches due to the injuries to his feet. There is also reference to complaints of secondary low back and hip problems related to favoring his injured right foot. Lastly, plaintiff alleged that at the time of the motorcycle falling over onto his lower extremities, he struck his head on the garage floor resulting in a closed head injury.

Economic Damages: Plaintiff, an airline pilot, was decertified and was no longer able to fly after the incident. Due to the injuries plaintiff incurred at the time of the incident, plaintiff alleged that he could no longer work in his field due to loss of certification. At the time of the incident, plaintiff was allegedly earning $350,000 a year. In addition plaintiff claimed that the injuries he incurred as a result of the incident resulted in a loss of a business opportunity available to him at a compensation of $500 and $1,500 per day. Plaintiff claimed he would have had an opportunity to earn an additional $8,000 per month. Plaintiff’s claimed damages were not disputed, except for the extent of the wage loss.

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff’s Demand to the Motorcycle Manufacturer and Dealership totaled: $7,000,000; Motorcycle Manufacturer Offered plaintiff: $750,000; Motorcycle Dealership offered plaintiff $250,000; Planitiff denied the offers.

Post trial Motions: Motion for a new trial – filed by plaintiff; Opposition filed by defendants. Denied.

Motion to Tax Costs – filed by plaintiff; Opposition filed by defendants. Denied.

Case Name: Garcia, et al. v. Keep On Trucking Co. aka Keep Trucking Corp. et al.

Venue: Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Counsel: Paula M. Shaw for defendant P.J.’s Lumber, Inc.; Judith Anderson, Esq. for Co- Defendants Pablo Cornejo and Keep on Trucking Co.; Salim Khawaja, Esq. for Plaintiffs Ramon Garcia and Kamach Ork; J. Jude Basile, Esq. for Plaintiff, Allen Johnson; Scott H. Z. Sumner, Esq. Associated Attorney for Plaintiffs

Insurance Company: Federated Mutual Insurance Company

Jury Verdict Date: June 17, 2010

Facts: Plaintiff Ramon Garcia, Kamach Ork, and David Allen Johnson filed a personal injury complaint against the above-named defendants as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred April 27, 2005 in front of PJ’s Building Materials aka PJ’s Lumbar, on Fremont Boulevard in Fremont, California. Fremont Boulevard is a north/south running roadway. There are generally two southbound and two northbound lanes at the accident site. A raised center median separates the north and southbound lanes. At approximately 4:50 a.m. Pablo Cornejo driving a tractor trailer truck while in the course and scope of his employment with Keep On Trucking Company was attempting to enter P.J.’s Lumber, Inc. via a driveway that is located on the east side of the business facing Fremont Boulevard. Cornejo was slowly pulling in the number two gate (the middle of three entrances into P.J.’s from Fremont Boulevard) and he had to take a wide turn to get into the driveway, thus he moved into the number one lane and then began to make a right turn. As Cornejo started to enter the driveway, plaintiff David Johnson’s vehicle struck the right rear corner of Cornejo’s trailer. Ramon Garcia was driving in the number one southbound lane behind plaintiff Johnson. After Johnson struck the trailer, Garcia struck Johnson’s vehicle.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: Plaintiff David Allen Johnson alleged the following injuries: loss of consciousness, lacerated nose, broken left index and ring fingers, lacerated tendon of the left ring finger, broken collar bone, several fractured ribs, torn blood vessels in the heart requiring open heart surgery, head injury, bruised lungs, blood clots, which required an induced coma state with plaintiff on a respirator for 30 days. Plaintiff sustained residual injuries including loss of mobility in his index and ring fingers, vision problems, headaches and loss of memory. Plaintiff was treated at Eden Hospital, Stanford Hospital and Kaiser. He was taken from the scene via air ambulance. Johnson’s medical specials exceeded $850,000. Further, Johnson’s heart condition had a guarded prognosis. Plaintiff was employed at New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) at the time of the incident. He was not able to work for four months. His alleged wage loss claim is approximately $16,000.

Plaintiff Ramon Garcia alleged injuries that included back pain and chest pain. He had back pain for approximately three to six months and then recovered. He sought treatment with Ingrid E. Machado at Cross Roads Chiropractic. Garcia’s total medical specials: $3,675.00. At the time of the incident Garcia was employed at Menlo Worldwide Logistics as a Material Handler. He missed one day of work for a total wage loss claim of $96.00.

Plaintiff Ork alleges injuries to his mid and low back, neck and shoulder pain, left forearm pain and knee pain. She sought treatment at Washington Hospital and Cross Road Chiropractic. Plaintiff Ork’s total medical specials: $5,522.47. At the time of the incident, Ork was employed at Menlo Worldwide Logistics as a dispatcher at the time of the incident. She missed three days from work for a total wage loss claim of: $420.00.

Settlement Negotiations: Keep On Trucking Offers to plaintiffs’: Ork: $500.00; Garcia: $500.00; Johnson: $250,000.00. PJ’s Lumber, Inc. Offers to plaintiffs’: Ork: $1,001.00; Garcia: $1,001.00; Johnson: $150,001.00.

Plaintiff Ork Demands to defendants’: Keep On Trucking: $14,999.00; PJ’s Lumber, Inc.: $19,999.00.

Plaintiff Garcia Demands to defendants’: Keep On Trucking: $9,999.00; PJ’s Lumber, Inc. : $14,999.00. Plaintiff Johnson Demands to defendants’: Keep On Trucking: $949,000.00; PJ’s Lumber, Inc.: $949,999.00.

Plaintiffs’ refused to mediate the case.

Verdict: The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against all defendants. The jury found liability should be proportioned as to plaintiff David Johnson (44%), defendants Pablo Cornejo and Keep On Trucking Company (44%) and PJ’s Building Materials (12%). Plaintiff David Johnson is to recover, from defendants, for past economic loss in the amount of $815,488.31, for past non-economic loss in the amount of $1,500,000 and for future noneconomic loss in the amount of $1,250,000. Accordingly, the total amount of the verdict in favor of plaintiff David Johnson is $3,565,488.31. That total is proportioned with judgment against Keep On Trucking being $1,568,814.86 and judgment against PJ’s Building Materials in the amount of $427,858.60.

As to plaintiff Ramon Garcia, the jury awarded $1,500 proportioned with Judgment against Keep On Trucking in the amount of $660 and against P.J.’s Lumber, Inc. being $180.

As to plaintiff Kamach Ork, the jury awarded recovery in the amount of $1,500 with Judgment against Keep On Trucking in the amount of $660 and against P.J.’s Lumber, Inc. in the amount of $180.

Case Name: Phan v. Van Bockel

Venue: Sacramento County, Judge David I. Brown

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell for defendant Shawn Van Bockel; Tam Nguyen for plaintiff Alexander Phan.

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial date: June 7, 2010

Facts: This was an automobile v. bicycle accident. Plaintiff was riding a bicycle in the wrong direction, but in a crosswalk and defendant was driving a Toyota Land Cruiser and stopped for a traffic light and there after commenced a right-hand turn when it appeared safe to proceed. The front of the defendant’s vehicle hit the plaintiff, who was riding his bicycle, at an approximate speed of 5 miles per hour causing the plaintiff to fall to the ground. Plaintiff was found 100% at fault by reporting police officer. Plaintiff's Medical Specials: Plaintiff complained of left leg and right shoulder pain. Following his ER treatment, plaintiff was referred by his attorney to chiropractor Lai Nguyen and treated 12 times. Plaintiff’s damages totaled: 14,294.95.

Arbitration Award: In the judicial arbitration, arbitrator Fernando V. Hernandez, Esq. issued his award finding total damages to be $25,000 including $14,294.86 in medical specials. The Arbitrator further proportioned fault with 60% to plaintiff and 40% to defendant resulting in an award of $10,000 to plaintiff. The award was rejected by the defendant. Following the receipt of the arbitration award, plaintiff indicated by letter that the Arbitrator’s Award of $10,000 was insufficient to pay for his medical bills and offered to settle the case for the medical specials of $14,294.86.

Verdict: Case Dismissed on the first day of trial. No waiver of costs.

Post-Trial Motions: Motion of Costs in the Sum of $4,839.00 awarded to defendant.

Case Name: Dovganyuk v. Russell

Venue: Sacramento County, Judge David I. Brown

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell for defendants Jeremy Russell and Melissa Diane Ankney; Robert Borcyckowski for plaintiffs Alexsandr Dovganyuk and Anna Verbetskaya

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Jury Verdict date: May 3, 2010

Facts: Four vehicles involved in an automobile accident in which plaintiff Dovganyuk’s vehicle was rear ended and pushed into another vehicle.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: Plaintiff Alexandr Dovganyuk claimed to have suffered herniated discs at C6-6 and C6-7. He initially sought chiropractic treatment with Keith Hardoin, D.C. and had subsequent physical therapy. Three and a half years after the accident, plaintiff had disc arthroplasty at C5-6 and C6-7 performed by Philip Orisek, M.D. Medical Specials for Plaintiff totaled: $181, 944.76. Amount Plaintiff asked of the Jury: 543,000.00. Amount Defense asked of the jury: $2,500.00. Plaintiff at trial called Dr. Orisek to testify. Defense called Dr. William K. Hoddick, Dr. James Anderson and Chiropractor Susan Bromley.

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiffs’ demand: $225,000.00, Defendants’ offer: $10,001.00.

Arbitration Award: This case was referred to non-binding judicial arbitration conducted on December 21, 2007 by Samuel Grader, Esq. Mr. Grader awarded plaintiff Verbetskaya $20,732.50, which consisted of $11,732.50 in medical specials and $10,000.00 in general damages. Dovganyuk was awarded all medical specials and $5,000.00 in general damages for a total of $16,732.50. Following the receipt of the arbitration award, C.C.P. ß998 Offers to Compromise were served on plaintiffs, Verbetskaya was in the sum of $150,001.00 and Dovganyuk was in the sum of $7,001.00.

Verdict: $47,930.00

Case Name: Sethi v. American Chimney

Venue: Alameda County, Judge Richard Keller

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia for defendant American Chimney Services; Scott Dunning for plaintiffs Sunita Sethi, Arun Sethi and Richa Sethi

Insurance Company: Unitrin Insurance Company

Trial Dates: February 4, 2008 - February 20, 2008

Facts: Rear-end automobile accident.

Plaintiff's Special Damages: Sunita Sethi - $56,056.11; Arun Sethi - $4,714.69; Richa Sethi - $4,762.60

Plaintiffs’ Demands: Sunita Sethi - $60,000.00; Arun Sethi - $7,500.00; Richa Sethi - $7,500.00

Defendants’ offers were as follows: Sunita Sethi - $15,001.00; Arun Sethi - $1,501.00; Richa Sethi - $1,501.00

Arbitration Awards: Sunita Sethi - $31,500.00; Arun Sethi - $3,500.00; Richa Sethi - $4,000.00

Jury Verdicts: Sunita Sethi - $30,000.00; Arun Sethi - $500.00; Richa Sethi - $800.00

Case Name: Cioran v. Morales

Venue: Alameda County, Judge Harry Sheppard

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia for defendant Guillermo Morales; Gurman Bal for plaintiffs Adella Cioran, David Cioran, Ileana Marginean & Constantin Marginean.

Insurance Company: 21st Century Insurance Company

Jury Verdict date: November 21, 2007

Trial Dates: August 25, 2008 - September 10, 2008

Facts: Rear-end automobile accident, liability not in dispute.

Plaintiff's Special Damages: Adella Cioran - $6,909.00; David Cioran - $2,085.00; Ileana Marginean - $4,189.00; Constantin Marginean - $4,084.00

Plaintiffs’ Demands: None, but indicated they would accept arbitration awards. Defendants’ offers were as follows: Dismissal in exchange fo waiver of costs.

Arbitration Awards: Adella Cioran - $8,089.00; David Cioran - $2,980.00; Ileana Marginean - $5,856.00; Constantin Marginean - $5,885.00

Jury Verdicts: Adella Cioran - Defense; David Cioran - Defense; Ileana Marginean - Defense; Constantin Marginean - Defense.

Case Name: Martinez v. P.J.'s Lumber, Inc., et al.

Venue: Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Counsel: Paula M. Shaw for defendants PJ’s Lumber, Inc. and Salvador Garcia; Steven R. Jacobsen, Esq. for plaintiff Alberto Martinez; Daniel E. Phillips, Esq. for plaintiff State Compensation Insurance Fund

Insurance Company: Federated Mutual Insurance Company

Jury Verdict date: October18, 2007

Facts: Defendant P.J.’s Lumber, Inc., is a rebar fabrication company in Fremont, California. Plaintiff was on P.J.’s premises on the date of the incident inspecting rebar that was to be delivered to one of P.J.’s customers. Plaintiff was in the course and scope of his employment for Smith-Emery Company, a rebar and concrete testing company. P.J.’s customer had retained Smith-Emery Company to inspect rebar that was to be shipped to their facility while it was still located at rebar’s fabrication yard. The rebar to be inspected was on a flat bed trailer that was located under a five ton gantry crane. The crane was used to load rebar onto the flat bed trailer. Plaintiff arrived at P.J.’s Lumber and it was disputed as to whether or not he had checked in with the crane operator before getting up on the trailer to begin his inspection. Plaintiff was standing in the stirrup of rebar, bent over inspecting rebar, while the trailer was being loaded. The crane operator did not know plaintiff was on the trailer. The crane inspector, Salvador Garcia was moving an approximate 2,000 pound bundle of rebar onto the trailer near the crane when he observed plaintiff stand up. The crane operator immediately turned the crane off, but the bundle continued to move such that it struck plaintiff knocking him down on to rebar that was already loaded on the trailer.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials and Wage Loss: Plaintiff Alberto Martinez claimed to have sustained a traumatic brain injury which caused various problems including cognitive deficit, speech problems and memory loss. He also claimed injuries to his shoulder, back and right knee. He also claimed to have suffered a hearing loss as a result of the subject incident. State Compensation Insurance Fund paid out $131,829.08 in workers= compensation benefits to plaintiff for his treatment after the accident (medical, vocational rehabilitation, temporary and permanent disability) and of this amount; approximately $35,000.00 was for medical specials. Additionally, plaintiff claimed wage loss to date in the amount of $187,000.00. This amount does not include the approximately $43,000.00 paid by State Comp for temporary disability (included in their lien). Plaintiff did not work after the date of the incident. At the time of the loss he was earning approximately $5,000 per month. Plaintiff also asserts a future wage loss in an unidentified amount. Plaintiff presented testimony that he would never be able to work again and would need knee and shoulder surgery. Plaintiff claimed past and future special damages of $3,200,000.00 and asked the Jury for $7,200,000.00.

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiffs’ Orignal Demand: Martinez: $2,900,000; State Compensation Insurance Fund: $128,913.30. Plaintiffs’ Second Demand (at mediation): Martinez: $2,800,000; State Compensation Insurance Fund: $64,456.65. Defendants’ Offer: $50,001.00 to each plaintiff.

Verdict: The Jury found joint and several liability as to both defendants and awarded Martinez $275,000.00 less $24,864.64 for worker’s compensation lien, net judgment: $250,135.36. The jury found that plaintiff did not sustain any brain injuries as a result of the subject incident. They also found that plaintiff’s orthopedic complaints pre-existed the subject incident and were degenerative in nature, however, they felt that the need for surgery was advanced by the subject incident thus awarded medical specials past and future to compensate plaintiff for this aspect of his injury. Plaintiff did not obtain a verdict more successful than defendants’ 998. If defendants are successful in their motion for costs and attorney’s fees, plaintiff will owe defendants approximately $30,000.00.

Post-Trial Motions: Plaintiff filed a motion to determine the amount of the workers= compensation lien and for attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to Labor Code Section 3856. The court granted plaintiff=s motion and reduced the workers= compensation lien from $131,000.00 to $24,864.64 (awarding plaintiff $233,558.93 in fees and costs). Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs as prevailing party for $31,941.34, and the court reduced this to $7,757.91 on defendant=s motion to tax costs. Defendants filed a memorandum of costs for $239,836.51 pursuant to CCP 998, and the court reduced this to $218,850.27 on plaintiff=s motion to tax costs. Defendants also filed a motion for costs of proving plaintiff was a deportable alien when he failed to admit this during discovery, and the court awarded $9,552.65 to defendant. The final judgment amount to plaintiff after all of the post-trial motions is $29,490.35.

Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial based on insufficient damages awarded in light of the evidence. Plaintiff felt that there was sufficient evidence to show that there had been a mild traumatic brain injury. In addition, plaintiff felt that failure of the jury to award future general damages was justification for a new trial as a matter of law. The court denied plaintiff=s motion for a new trial.

Case Name: Zilbermints et al. v. Bauman et al.

Venue: San Francisco County Superior Court, Limited Jurisdiction (Pre-Trial Motion filed by defense to change venue from Unlimited Jurisdiction to Limited Jurisdiction was granted)

Trial Counsel: Paula M. Shaw for defendants Linda Baumann and Matthew Baumann; Stephen McLean, Esq. for plaintiffs Peter Zilbermints and Larisa Guchkova.

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Jury Verdict Date: April 16, 2007

Facts: Three vehicles involved in an automobile accident in which plaintiffs’ vehicle was rearended the plaintiffs’ vehicle and pushed into another vehicle.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: Plaintiff Peter Zilbermints claimed to have suffered mid thoratic spine pain and neck and chest pain as a result of the automobile accident. He initially sought treatment with James Greenberg, M.D. who referred her to Marat Diner Physical Therapy, where he was treated for 4 months. Medical Specials for Plaintiff Zilbermints totaled: $2,598.00. Plaintiff Larisa Guchkova claimed to have suffered cervical strain, mild closed head injury neck injury, hypertension and degenerative joint disease at C5-C7. She initially sought treatment with James Greenberg, M.D. who referred her to Marat Diner Physical Therapy, where she was treated for 4 months. Medical Specials for Guchkova totaled: $5,049.20.

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiffs’ Demand: $15,000.00; Defendants’ offers: Larisa Guchkova - $1,501.00 and Peter Zilbermints - $1,100.00

Arbitration Award: This case was referred to non-binding judicial arbitration conducted on on September 1, 2006 by Bryan Kram, Esq. Mr. Kram found in favor of plaintiffs and awarded Larisa Guchkova $9,500 plus costs and Peter Zilbermints $5,850 plus costs. A rejection of the arbitration award and request for trial de novo was filed by the defendants.

Verdict: Defense. (The verdict was unanimous with all 12 jurors finding that Mr. Baumann was not negligent. The jury deliberated for approximately 25 minutes.

Case Name: Wrinkle v. Chessman

Venue: Santa Clara Superior Court

Trial Counsel: Philip A. Pereira, Esq.

Insurance Company: California Casualty Indemnity Exchange

Trial Dates: May 8-18, 2006

Facts: Rear-end accident; liability conceded; soft tissue conceded; brain damage contested.

Plaintiffs' Medical Specials: $18,000 plus Kaiser lien; also $15,000 plus wage loss claim.

Settlement Negotiations: Lowest demand was $50,000 998; Offer raised to $453,000 during trial; Offer was $3,501 998 Offer and $15,000 and Settlement Conference
Verdict: $2,605.00

Post Trial Motions: Motion to Tax Defendant's Costs of $10,871 pending

Case Name: Burgess v. Nagy

Venue: San Francisco County

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia for defendant, Susan Nagy; Brian Larsen and Lauren Gelber for plaintiff, Reynard Burgess, Jr.

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Dates: March 6, 2006

Facts: Rear-end automobile accident.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: $3,265.00

Plaintiff's Wage Loss: $108.20

Arbitration Award: Defense

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff initially demanded $10,000.00, which was reduced to $1,699.99, via a CCP ß 998 Offer to Compromise, less than a month prior to trial. Defendant initially served a CCP ß 998 Offer to Compromise in the amount of $751.00, which plaintiff rejected. Thereafter, three months prior to trial, defense offered a cost waiver in exchange for a dismissal, which plaintiff had a month to accept or reject. Plaintiff rejected the offer of a cost waiver.

Verdict: Three days prior to trial, plaintiff paid defendant $751 in costs and the case was dismissed.

Case Name: Nguyen v. Khan

Venue: Santa Clara County

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia for defendant, Shaira Khan; Tam Nguyen for plaintiff, Diep Nguyen.

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Dates: February 27, 2006

Facts: Rear-end automobile accident with allegation of sudden stop on freeway by plaintiff.

Plaintiffs' Medical Specials: $8,179.99

Plaintiff's Wage Loss: $472.50

Case Name: Badiyo v. Burger King Corporation

Venue: San Mateo

Trial Counsel: Paula M. Shaw, Esq. for defendant; Norman Newhouse, Esq. for plaintiff

Insurance Company: Allied Insurance Company

Trial Dates: October 24, 2005

Facts: Slip and fall with admitted liability. Plaintiff was claiming sacroiliac joint sprain and chronic pain syndrome.

Plaintiff's Medical Special: Kaiser: $7,200.00; chiropractic: $175.00; CMT $875.00.

Settlement Negotiations: Defendant offered $5,000.00 at the mediation as an opening offer. Plaintiff's attorney walked out claiming the defendant was not negotiating in good faith. Prior to trial plaintiff posted a C.C.P. ß998 Offer to Compromise for $48,000.00. Defense posted a C.C.P. ß998 Offer to Compromise for $30,000.00.

Verdict: $6,060.00

Case Name: Ball v. Matheson Fast Freight

Venue: Alameda

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendants; Patricia K. Walmann, Esq. for plaintiffs

Insurance Company: Self-insured Gallagher Bassett (Third Party Administrator)

Trial Dates: September 20, 2005 - September 23, 2005

Facts: Auto versus truck accident in Montclair, California. Plaintiff, Helen Ball, driving a 2003 Honda Civic with husband, William Ball, as a passenger. Plaintiffs alleged their vehicle was struck by a Matheson truck.

Plaintiff's Medical Special: Helen Ball: $250,000.00; William Ball: $248,000.00

Settlement negotiations: Offer: $50,000.00; Demand: $250,000.00.

Verdict: Defense

Case Name: Sandles v. Anderson

Venue: Solano County

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia for defendant, Darren Anderson; A. Lee Sanders, Esq. for plaintiff, Janice Sandles

Insurance Company: 21st Century Insurance Company

Trial Dates: July 28 - 31, 2003

Facts: Rear-end accident in which defendant disputed liability due to a sudden stop by plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Medical Special: $8,682.70

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff's Demand: $11,867.24 pre-trial and $15,000.00 at trial.

Defendant's Offer: $0
Verdict: Defense

Case Name: Watkins v. Posada

Venue: Alameda County

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendant, Posada; Frank Ennix, Esq. for plaintiffs, Sohan and Watkins

Insurance Company: Qestrel Management Services

Trial Date: June 23, 2003

Facts: Moderate rear-end automobile accident.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: Plaintiff, Sohan - $1,735.00; Plaintiff, Watkins - $1,623.00
Settlement Negotiations: No offers.

Verdict: A Non-Suit was granted on the second day of trial on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to establish that at the time of the accident the vehicle then being used and allegedly involved in the accident with plaintiffs was owned by the defendant and was being used with the permission of the owner.

Case Name: Hammond v. Gold Rush Express

Venue: Santa Clara County

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendant, Gold Rush Express; Byron C. Foster, Esq. for plaintiff, Hammond

Insurance Company: CNA Insurance Company

Trial Date: May 7, 2003

Facts: Head-on automobile accident in which both vehicles were totaled. Plaintiff's Injuries: Plaintiff suffered a comminuted fracture of her left ulna. As a result, she suffered a mal-union of the left distal ulnar leaving a 22 degree deformity and a loss of 40% to 50% range of motion in her left hand regarding supination. The experts agreed that plaintiff's condition was permanent.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: $11,823.95

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff demanded $1 million which was reduced to $550,000.00 on the first day of trial. Defendant served an Offer to Compromise in the sum of $125,000.00.

Verdict: $273,368.00.

Case Name: Manzon v. Adams

Venue: Solano County

Trial Counsel: Phaidra M. Garcia, Esq. for defendant Dana Adams; Lawrence Strick, Esq. for plaintiff, Marilou Manzon

Insurance Company: 21st Century Insurance Company

Trial Dates: April 28 - 30, 2003

Facts: Rear-end accident in which defendant disputed liability due to being momentarily blinded by the sun.

Plaintiff's Medical Special: $3,923.66

Plaintiff's Wage Loss: $550.00

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff's Demand: $6,000.00 pre-trial and $25,000.00 at trial.

Defendant's Offer: $0

Verdict: Defense

Case Name: Epshteyn v. Bettencourt

Venue: San Francisco County

Trial Counsel: Paula Shaw, Esq. for defendants, Rose Bettencourt and Bernice Perez; Melina Levitan, Esq. and Stephen Brad, Esq. for plaintiffs, Gennady Epshteyn and White Checker Cab

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Dates: June 3 - 6, 2002

Facts: Insured was lost on Highway 101 and entered San Francisco Airport by mistake. Insured made improper left turn in front of taxi cab while trying to turn around. Property damage estimate to front of cab: $2,600.00; damage to insured vehicle $6,995.10.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: $3,800.00

Arbitration: Arbitration Award $9,898.00 rejected by defendant.

Verdict: $2,179.00 (First vote taken was 7 to 5 in favor of defense verdict.)

Case Name: Simon v. Humbertt

Venue: Stanislaus County

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendant, Humbert; Robert Farrace, Esq. for plaintiff, Simon

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Dates: December 4 - 6, 2001

Facts: Minor rear-end automobile accident in which the repair estimate for plaintiff's vehicle was $1,012.00.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: $3,078.44

Plaintiff's Wage Loss Claim: $7,928.00

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff's Offer to Compromise: $2,000.00; Defendant's Offer to Compromise: $1,001.00

Verdict: $1,012.00

Post-Trial Motions: Defendant is seeking recovery of costs in the sum of $8,830.05.

Case Name: Wong v. Garcia

Venue: San Francisco County

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendant, Garcia; Clarence Livingston, Esq. for plaintiff, Wong

Insurance Company: Galway Insurance Company

Trial Dates: September 10 - 14, 2001

Facts: Minor rear-end automobile accident in which the repair estimate for plaintiffís vehicle was $4,324.66.

Plaintiffís Medical Specials: $5,439.90

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff's Offer to Compromise: $15,000.00; Defendant's Offer to Compromise: $ 5,501.00

Verdict: $750.00

Post-Trial Motions: Defendant is seeking recovery of costs in the sum of $8,830.05.

Case Name: Fierro v. Kurlinski

Venue: Alameda County

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendant, Kurlinski; Richard F. Rescho, Esq. for plaintiffs

Insurance Company: Galway Insurance Company

Trial Dates: June 4 - 8, 2001

Facts: Rear-end automobile accident in which plaintiffs claimed that the repair estimate for their vehicle was in the sum of $4,500.00.

Plaintiffs' Medical Specials: $4,009.00

Settlement Negotiations: Defendant served an Offer to Compromise in the sum of $6,000.00 and plaintiffs demanded the sum of $10,000.00.

Verdict: $654.00 for personal injuries and $1,500.00 for property damage.

Post Trial Motions: Defendant was awarded costs in the amount of $4,711.00.

Case Name: Jolin v. Baker

Venue: Mendocino County

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendants, Joyce Baker and Peter Rosler; Tibor Major, Esq. for plaintiffs, Robert Jolin, Elaine Jolin, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for David Jolin, a minor, and Wanda Lopez

Insurance Company: Qestrel Claims Management

Trial Dates: December 18 -22, 2000

Facts: Five-car automobile accident in which one of the plaintiff's vehicle's repair estimate was in the sum of $5,668.00. The other vehicle's repair estimate was in the sum of $232.00.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: Elaine Jolin $4,949.00 ;David Jolin: $4,645.00; Robert Jolin: $5,708.00; Wanda Lopez: $7,963.00

Settlement Negotiations:
Plaintiff''s Demand: Elaine Jolin $ 50,000.00; David Jolin $100,000.00; Robert Jolin $ 35,000.00; Wanda Lopez: $50,000.00. Defendant's 998s: Elaine Jolin $10,001.00; David Jolin $ 1,001.00; Robert Jolin $ 2,501.00; Wanda Lopez: $ 2,701.00

Verdict: Elaine Jolin $1,158.50; David Jolin $1,677.60; Robert Jolin $ 520.70; Wanda Lopez $ 825.00

Post Trial Motions: Costs were awarded to defendant in the sum of $28,517.36. The case was appealed by plaintiffs and denied. Costs were paid by plaintiffs.

Case Name: Bustos v. Tam

Venue: San Francisco County

Trial Counsel: David A. McDowell, Esq. for defendant Tam; Andrew Antagma, Esq. for plaintiff Bustos

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Dates: December 11 - 15, 2000

Facts: Minor front end auto accident in which plaintiff's vehicle incurred damage.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: $2,888.00

Settlement Negotiations: Defendant's Offer to Compromise: $2,501.00

Plaintiff's Offer to Compromise: None

Verdict: Economic Damages: $9,000.00

Non-Economic Damages - 0

Case Name: Kravchenko v. Hankins

Venue: San Francisco County

Trial Counsel: Paula M. Shaw, Esq. for defendant, Hankins; Marina Kab, Esq. for plaintiff, Kravchenko

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Dates: October 10 - 13, 2000

Facts: Insured ran a red light, broadside impact to plaintiff's vehicle

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: $4,234.00

Settlement Negotiations: Offer by defendant was $3,000.00 and demand by plaintiff was $6,000.00.

Verdict: $3,270.00

Case Name: Shayn v. Turkenich

Venue: San Francisco County

Trial Counsel: Paula M. Shaw, Esq. for defendant, Turkenich; Mitchell Carp, Esq. and Thomas Eastridge, Esq. for plaintiff Shayn

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Dates: August 21 - 29, 2000

Facts: Insured made a left in front of plaintiff. Plaintiff transported by ambulance to emergency room.

Plaintiff's Medical Specials: $6,021.36

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiff's demand: $14,000.00

Defendant's 998: $2,001.00

Verdict: $5,000.00

Case Name: Spirt v. Turpie

Venue: San Francisco County

Trial Counsel: Paula M. Shaw, Esq. for defendants, Turpie; Victor Lipovetsky, Esq. and Thomas Paoli, Esq. for plaintiffs

Insurance Company: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Trial Dates: June 12, 2000

Facts: Insured thought plaintiff was going to execute a right turn and attempted to pass plaintiff on the left. Plaintiff turned left colliding with insured.

Plaintiffs' Medical Specials: $5,693.00, with recommendation for surgery with $35,000.00- 40,000.00
future medical.

Arbitration Award: $165,000.00

Settlement Negotiations: Plaintiffs' Offer to Compromise: $100,000.00

Defendant's Offer to Compromise: $3,000.00

Verdict: The court ordered the case to a settlement conference on the day of trial.
Defendants withdrew the CCP 998 Offer. When the judge was about to start jury selection,
plaintiff agreed to have judgment entered against him in the amount of $6,000.00 for defense costs.

Back To Top