Facts

On May 11, 2004, plaintiff Hsiang-Mei Gianvecchio was driving her 4-door Volvo sedan westbound in the inside lane of a traffic circle. Defendant Stephen Hinchliffe was driving his 2-door Lexus SC 430 southbound and entered the traffic circle after passing a “Yield” sign, which was controlling the southbound traffic. The front of the defendant’s vehicle came into contact with the front right of the plaintiff’s vehicle causing approximately $3,000 in damage to both. The investigating officer prepared a property damage report only and was unable to determine who was at fault for the accident.

Two years later, the plaintiff underwent a C4-5 and C5-6 fusion surgery. The treating surgeon’s records indicated that the surgery was caused by degenerative disease. The plaintiff subsequently underwent a carpal tunnel release and ulnar nerve transposition to her right wrist and elbow respectively. Gianvecchio was a homemaker, a mother of two and was not employed at the time of the accident and had not worked for two years. Her employment history consisted of a background in computers working in the areas of program management and quality assurance. She had a prior accident in 1999, where she suffered some pain and discomfort to her neck and for which she received a couple months of conservative treatment.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to obey the Yield sign and was the proximate cause of the subject accident; that the plaintiff’s fusion surgery was a result of the subject accident and not degenerative disc disease; and that the plaintiff’s carpal tunnel release and ulnar nerve transposition to right wrist and elbow was a result of the subject accident and not her history of work behind a computer.

The plaintiff was planning on returning to work at some point in the future and her injuries would affect her earning capacity in that respect.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s fusion surgery was a result of degenerative disc disease. Her films from the 1999 auto accident were the same as her films from the subject auto accident. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff’s carpal tunnel release and ulnar nerve transposition was a result of repetitive use of a computer over the years and the plaintiff had no real intention of returning to the work force.

Specials in Evidence

$70,000

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered C4-5 and C5-6 fusion; carpal tunnel release and ulnar nerve transposition to right wrist and elbow.