This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Auto v. Auto
Negligence

Patryce A. Lukes v. Margaret Lorango, Gilbert Garcia, Peskin & Gerson Glass Co.

Published: Nov. 18, 2003 | Result Date: Mar. 13, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: LC058615 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Ruth Essegian

Court

L.A. Superior Van Nuys


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Bruce E. Altschuld
(Law Offices of Bruce E. Altschuld)


Defendant

Roberta L. Weiner


Experts

Plaintiff

Leon Robb
(medical)

Defendant

Robert M. Wilson M.D.
(medical)

Judson B. Welcher Ph.D.
(technical)

Facts

On Dec. 13, 2000, plaintiff Patryce Lukes, a 47-year-old woman, was driving her 1991 Saab on a road in Los Angeles. Defendant Gilbert Garcia, while in the course and scope of employment with Peskin & Gerson Glass Co., was driving a 1986 pickup behind the plaintiff. As plaintiff was stopped at an intersection, the defendant's vehicle hit the back of the plaintiff's Saab, which sustained damage. The plaintiff sued the defendant and his employer alleging vehicular negligence. The defendants admitted liability.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff's final demand was $20,000. The defendants made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $15,000.

Specials in Evidence

$40,000 $100,000

Damages

Vehicle damage of $900.

Injuries

The plaintiff sought medical treatment for nerve damage from a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist a couple of weeks after the accident. Months later, she saw a pain management specialist who testified that he injected the plaintiff's nerve roots without the aid of a fluoroscope. He also performed a cervical facet block. The defendants argued that this was not an injury-producing accident which could have caused the plaintiff's injuries. An expert for the defense testified that it was inappropriate to do procedures without the use of a fluoroscope. He also stated that cervical facet blocks were not recommended because the procedure had a poor success rate, and such charges were excessive.

Result

The jury found for defendants.

Deliberation

one hour

Poll

12-0

Length

three days


#83801

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390