Shaun Egbert v. California ReLiEF Fund
Published: Jul. 25, 2009 | Result Date: May 6, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: case not filed Arbitration – $2,056,000 ($1,817,934 after offsets)
Court
JAMS
Attorneys
Claimant
B. Robert Allard
(Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard LLP)
Respondent
Craig E. Farmer
(Farmer, Smith & Lane LLP)
Experts
Claimant
Jeffrey T. Holmes
(medical)
Lawrence 'Lan' Lievense
(medical)
Respondent
Gordon L. Levin M.D.
(medical)
Facts
Shaun Egbert, then a 53-year-old behavioral specialist for mentally challenged children, worked for Scotts Valley Unified School District. Egbert claimed to have sustained serious personal injuries stemming from a high speed head-on collision that occurred on May 2, 2007, on Highway 1, just north of Santa Cruz. As a result of this collision, Egbert was airlifted and hospitalized at Stanford Medical Center for an extended period of time for treatment of the following injuries: shattered wrist, severed tendons in her ankle, broken upper leg and a frozen shoulder, also known as adhesive capsulitis. After two surgeries were performed to put together her wrist and ankle, as well as rehabilitation therapy, Egbert was released to return to work just about a year after the accident. Despite this, Egbert claimed she was left with significant residual pain and limitations in her daily activities, which her treating doctors determined would be life long in nature.
The driver of the car who was responsible for the accident possessed relatively minimal insurance. Egbert applied to the Northern California ReLiEF Fund (the "Fund") for benefits. As an alternative to insurance, the Fund, "provide[d] broad property and casualty programs for school districts in Northern California through fiscally responsible proactive risk management". Over 380 school districts pooled monies through an adjusting firm, Keenan and Associates. Egbert was denied, and the case went to arbitration.
Contentions
CLAIMANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Egbert claimed that she was entitled to benefits under the Fund's memorandum of coverage.
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:
The respondent contended that the claimant was not entitled to benefits under the memorandum of coverage. Furthermore, the respondent claimed that the claimant was not entitled to compensatory damages.
Result
During the second arbitration, and after two full days of hearing, the arbitrator issued the claimant an award providing a gross amount of $2,056,000, which after offsets, was reduced to $1,817,934.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390