Facts

On Dec. 21, 2002 at midnight, plaintiff Mario Sanchez, a 24-year-old computer programmer, was a front-seat passenger of an SUV traveling westbound on Eureka Road in Roseville. A California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer was traveling southbound on Taylor Road. A third motorist made an illegal U-turn in front of the CHP officer at the Taylor-Eureka intersection. The officer started to pursue the motorist, entering the intersection on a red light and starting to make a U-turn. The front of the CHP patrol car collided with the left front quarter of the SUV.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff sued the CHP, alleging motor vehicle negligence. The plaintiff sustained a disc injury at L4-5 with the possibility that it might be herniated. His treating orthopedic surgeon and chiropractor supported the diagnoses. the plaintiff claimed the injury changed his life, forcing him to walk with a cane for almost a year, and making it impossible to sit for long periods of time without debilitating lower back and leg pain. The plaintiff further claimed that his athletic career as an Olympic-level Tae Kwan Do fighter was ruined, and that he had to relinquish his $43,000-per-year computer programming job.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The CHP admitted negligence. However, it contested the reasonableness and necessity of the majority of plaintiff's treatment.

An accident reconstruction expert testified that the vehicles were traveling too slowly at the time of impact to cause a disc injury. A neurosurgeon examined plaintiff, reviewed his medical records and studied two MRIs of his back. He concluded that plaintiff probably sustained only minor to moderate neck and back strains. The neurosurgeon opined that such strains only require a two-week break from work and a month of physical therapy or chiropractic treatment. He estimated that plaintiff was fully recovered three months after the accident.

Defense counsel noted that plaintiff went to a hospital emergency room the day after the accident but doctors found no sign of any structural back injury. The treating nurse testified that plaintiff was not walking with a cane at that time. Also, the next day, plaintiff left work after a half day and presented to a chiropractor. Within a week, plaintiff consulted with an attorney who ordered him to change chiropractors. The new chiropractor certified that plaintiff was unable to work for 30 days. The plaintiff then began receiving temporary disability payments and never returned to his job. The plaintiff had claimed he was physically unable to work at a desk job for about 20 months.

The defense also noted that plaintiff's Tae Kwan Do achievements occurred several years before the accident. It also pointed out that plaintiff lost his job because he failed to return to work after three months. The plaintiff had failed to supply a medical certificate justifying additional time off, despite several warning letters from his employer.

The defense contended that during the period when plaintiff claimed he was in too much pain to sit at a desk, he made several long trips by car, including to Los Angeles, Seattle and Pismo Beach. He also made a four-day car trip to Disneyland, wherein he rode a massive roller coaster. The defense counsel showed the jury a four-minute video clip of the roller coaster ride, taken by a private investigator, including two minutes of footage it from the rider's perspective.

Defense counsel further offered plaintiff's treating chiropractor's website into evidence. It stated the chiropractor specializes in "car accident recovery" and will arrange meetings during treatment visits with attorneys "who have gotten wonderful results for our patients." The defense used the website to impeach his diagnosis that plaintiff sustained a herniated disc. The minor disc bulge did not have any of the features which the chiropractor's own website described in its definition of herniated disc.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $69,999 plus costs; the CHP offered $40,001 (C.C.P. Section 998).

Injuries

The parties stipulated that plaintiff had $24,599 in past medical costs. The insurance paid $6,000. The plaintiff sought $200,000 for past lost earnings, future lost earnings, future medical care, and pain and suffering.

Result

The jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him $18,000. Because plaintiff failed to recover as much as the CHP's statutory C.C.P. Section 998 offer, the award was reduced by CHP's trial costs, including expert fees. The actual award was $3,810.

Deliberation

three hours

Poll

12-0

Length

six hours