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

Megha Raghavan v. Farid Jiandani

Published: Apr. 28, 2012 | Result Date: Feb. 9, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 111cv195679 Settlement –  $750,000

Court

Santa Clara Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James W.E. Hoffmann

Robert S. Levin


Defendant

Robert M. Gerhardt


Experts

Plaintiff

Gloria Wu
(medical)

Kuldev Singh
(medical)

Defendant

William V. Good
(medical)

Facts

On May 30, 2007, plaintiff Megha Raghavan, age 16, was a passenger in defendant Farid Jiandani's car. Jiandani rear-ended another vehicle and plaintiff was struck in the face with the airbag.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that that she would need to have four ophthalmological visits every year with two different specialists for the rest of her life to monitor her for glaucoma and retinal damage. Plaintiff still had dried blood in her eye that affected her vision (floaters). Plaintiff could not run or jog or engage in any activity that would cause rapid movement of her head. Plaintiff alleged she was at significant risk for developing glaucoma and cataract in right eye.

Plaintiff claimed that defendant's expert, Dr. Good, was a pediatric ophthalmologist and not an adult retinal or glaucoma specialist, unlike plaintiff's experts Dr. Singh (a glaucoma specialist), and Dr. Wu (a retina specialist).

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant admitted liability, but contended that plaintiff had made a great recovery and had excellent medical care.

Defendant claimed that plaintiff could be seen by one specialist every year that could monitor her eye. Defendant contended that plaintiff did not need to be seen four times a year by different specialists and that her headaches were unrelated to the accident. Defendant further contended that plaintiff's vision was 20/20 corrected.

Defendant claimed that plaintiff was a star student, participated in a violin recital shortly after the accident, ran track after the accident, and was not at serious risk for developing glaucoma or further retinal damage. The injury has not hindered her in any appreciable way.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $2 million at mediation, lowered to $1 million at MSC, and prior to start of trial, the demand was lowered to $750,000. Defendant offered $75,000 at mediation and $150,000 at MSC, raised to $250,000 during trial, and $500,000 at close of plaintiff's evidence.

Specials in Evidence

$23,000 $1 million for medical monitoring

Injuries

Plaintiff's right eye was pushed back as a result of the impact causing bleeding, and disruption of the retina. Plaintiff testified that her central vision of her right eye was wavy and caused headaches when she read for more than three hours. She did not have glaucoma or detached retina. She has not had any surgeries. She was not planning on any future surgeries. Plaintiff was 20 at the time of trial. She graduated from high school with high honors and was a senior at Cal Berkeley with a double major in Cell Biology and Economics and a 3.8 GPA at the time of trial.

Result

The case settled for $750,000 at the close of plaintiff's evidence after the third day of trial.


#96982

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

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