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
Rear-End Collision

Jose Q. Ramirez v. Janice Avery

Published: Feb. 17, 2007 | Result Date: Apr. 6, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 234056 Verdict –  $72,000

Court

Sonoma Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Julia J. Parranto


Defendant

Anne C. D'Arcy
(Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Michael Tran
(medical)

Eric Schmidt
(medical)

Eldan Eichbaum
(medical)

Daniel Brown
(medical)

Defendant

Susan E. Bromley
(medical)

Facts

In 2002, Plaintiff Jose Quintero Ramirez was driving south on Interstate 101 when a vehicle driven by Janice Avery rear-ended his vehicle. Ramirez, 41, sued Avery, alleging negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Avery conceded liability.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff, who is a union laborer, contended that he missed work due to the pain caused by his injuries. The plaintiff's counsel refuted the defense's claims that his injuries were pre-existing by claiming that it was only after the accident at issue that the plaintiff required treatment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the plaintiff's injuries were not a result of the accident, rather the plaintiff suffered from degenerative injuries that occurred before and after the accident in issue. For example, in 1996, the plaintiff suffered injuries to his hips and shoulders and received workers' compensation. After the accident, the plaintiff suffered a broken hand. The defense also claimed that the accident occurred at a low rate of speed. A defense expert forensic chiropractor opined that the chiropractic treatment the plaintiff received was in excess of that which was actually necessary to treat him. As a result, the plaintiff should receive only $1,000 to $1,500 for his chiropractic care. The defense claimed that the damage to the plaintiff's vehicle was less than $3,000.

Specials in Evidence

$20,000. Because the plaintiff could not remember how many days of work he missed as a result of pain, he did not seek lost earnings. $30,000.

Damages

The plaintiff sought past and future pain and suffering. His attorney requested $100 a day for every day the plaintiff was and is in pain.

Injuries

The plaintiff's injuries consisted of soft-tissue injuries to his neck and shoulder. The plaintiff's neurosurgeon opined that the plaintiff needed cervical epidural injections due to injuries at C5-6 and C6-7.

Result

$72,000.

Deliberation

six hours

Poll

12-0

Length

three days


#92561

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

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