Ricardo Alva v. Avoy Nanda
Published: May 4, 2004 | Result Date: Oct. 28, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 02405981 Verdict – $40,550
Judge
Court
San Francisco Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
George V. Choulos
(Choulos, Choulos & Wyle LLP)
Anna Dubrovsky
(Anna Dubrovsky Law Group Inc.)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Brad M. Wong
(technical)
Winthrop Smith Ph.D.
(technical)
Barry John Bugatto
(medical)
Tracy A. Newkirk
(medical)
Defendant
Floyd Fortuin
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Ricardo Alva was driving his 1996 Honda Civic southbound on Van Ness in San Francisco. At the same time, defendant Avoy Nanda was driving his 2000 Ford Mustang northbound. The defendant then began to turn left and hit plaintiff's car head-on. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging vehicular negligence. The defendant admitted liability and conceded the accident was of significant force to cause injury. However, defendant disputed the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded C.C.P. Section 998 for $50,000; defendant offered C.C.P. Section 998 for $10,000.
Injuries
The plaintiff claimed he suffered a head injury, a concussion, post-concussion syndrome and thoracic outlet syndrome. He went to an emergency room four days after the accident. He also visited his treating physician, two neurologists and a physical therapist. The plaintiff sought between $150,000 and $200,000. The defendant argued that plaintiff did not suffer any of the claimed injuries. Rather, he alleged plaintiff suffered insignificant injuries, including a bump on the head, muscle tension and soreness. The defendant claimed the thoracic outlet syndrome was a pre-existing condition. The defendant asserted that plaintiff received nothing or $1,600 to cover the cost of the emergency room visit and CT scan.
Result
In non-binding arbitration, defendant rejected plaintiff's arbitration award of $12,000. At trial, the jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him $40,550: $17,200 for past economic expenses; $7,350 for future economic expenses; $13,000 for past non-economic expenses; and $3,000 for future non-economic expenses. The trial court ruled that because the jury award was more than the arbitration award, defendant was responsible for plaintiff's costs, which totaled $16,067.
Deliberation
1.5 days
Poll
12-0 (past economic), 12-0 (future economic), 10-2 (past non-economic), 11-1 (future non-economic)
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390