Uninsured plaintiff needs cervical discectomy and fusion at C4-5 after T-bone crash. $200K. Fresno County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  In July 2021, the 43-year-old plaintiff was driving straight with the right-of-way when an individual, who was working at the time for Skyview Memorial Lawn, came out of a parking lot and T-boned plaintiff's vehicle on the passenger side.

  Plaintiff was uninsured at the time, so Prop 213 applied to his bodily injury claim.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  Plaintiff acknowledged that he was not entitled to any non-economic damages. Dr. Ghodadra prepared a life-care plan for plaintiff, about $1.8M, but the judge did not allow future meds to go to the jury, agreeing with defendant that plaintiff did not meet the "reasonably certain" standard. 

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendant accepted liability, but disputed the nature and extent of plaintiff's damages.

  Defendant contended that throughout discovery plaintiff and his counsel, intentionally concealed plaintiff’s involvement in a violent MVA that occurred four years prior to the subject MVA and sent him to an emergency department with severe neck and back pain. The pertinent medical records were discovered only in the plaintiff’s expert files produced in expert discovery.  Plaintiff testified in written discovery responses and his deposition that he had never been injured in any prior MVA’s. Defendant argued that plaintiff had in fact sustained significant injuries to his neck and back during the 2017 MVA, and that plaintiff also suffered from pre-existing degenerative issues.

  Defendant argued the ACDF was unnecessary, and to the extent it was necessary, it was not caused by the subject incident. Plaintiff’s experts testified that in the next20 years the plaintiff would suffer from adjacent segment disease due to his cervical fusion, thereby requiring surgery in the future.  Defendant presented evidence that any future cervical fusion was not reasonably certain to occur and that the proposed future surgery had a likelihood of less than 6%. The defendant also contended that plaintiff failed to prove causation with respect to future lumbar medical care. 

  The defendant moved for nonsuit after plaintiff rested. The motion was based on the grounds that 1) plaintiff failed to prove that the subject incident caused any of the plaintiff’s injuries or any underlying conditions requiring future medical care for plaintiff’s lumbar spine; and 2) plaintiff failed to prove that future medical expenses were reasonably certain to occur.

  The judge denied the defendant's motion as to causation as to plaintiff’s past medical care, finding that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence as to causation of some injury to his neck.

  With respect to future damages claimed by the plaintiff, the judge ruled in two parts. First, with respect to the future cervical fusion claimed by the plaintiff to be necessitated by adjacent segment disease, the judge sustained the motion for nonsuit finding the plaintiff failed to present evidence that any future cervical surgery was reasonably certain to occur based upon the testimony of all experts. With respect to future medical care for the plaintiff’s lumbar spine (whether surgery, spinal cord stimulators or further workup), the judge ruled that no evidence was presented showing that the underlying conditions for which plaintiff sought future lumbar medical care were caused by the subject incident, including a congenital condition known as Bertolotti’s Disease and a degenerative condition.