Cindy L. Smith v. Sylvie Lemoine, Spring Hill Jersey Farm
Published: Nov. 24, 2007 | Result Date: Sep. 25, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: RG05236911 Verdict – Defense
Court
Alameda Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
David W. Hughes
(Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLP)
Defendant
Christopher J. Beeman
(Clapp Moroney Vucinich Beeman Scheley)
Experts
Plaintiff
Steven Gest
(medical)
Gordon Tang
(medical)
Ron Lieberson
(medical)
Defendant
Daniel S. Girvan
(technical)
Facts
Cindy Lee Smith was driving a sedan in the course and scope of her employment as a paratransit driver. Her vehicle was struck from behind by a station wagon traveling at approximately 10 to 15 miles per hour, being driven by Sylvie Lemoine, in the course and scope of her employment with Spring Hill Jersey Farm. Smith filed suit against Lemoine and her employer.
Contentions
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants conceded liability for the accident, but contested causation of plaintiff's alleged injuries. The defendants introduced expert opinion that plaintiff suffered from degenerative changes to her cervical spine, and that she might have required surgery even if she hadn't been involved in the accident. The defendants' experts stated that the rear-impact collision here did not involve forces sufficient to have caused structural damage to the cervical spine.
Specials in Evidence
Plaintiff sought $128,000 in medical expenses. Plaintiff anticipated $75,000 to $100,000 in future medical expenses.
Damages
The plaintiff sought a total of $1.1 million in damages.
Injuries
The plaintiff's expert neurosurgeon testified that she had developed a cervical condition as a result of the accident, which required surgical intervention. He opined that plaintiff would also require future surgery as well. The plaintiff denied having any cervical symptoms or treatment prior to the accident. The plaintiff underwent a corpectomy procedure at C6 for a disc herniation at C6-7, and claimed that she could require future surgery to address adjacent vertebral segments which would be weakened by the fused levels addressed in the first surgery.
Result
The jury returned a defense verdict. The jurors stated that they did not consider the plaintiff's expert witnesses' testimony because they felt he was a "hired gun."
Other Information
The plaintiffs are considering filing a motion for a new trial.
Deliberation
5.5 hours
Poll
11-1 (no causation)
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390