Full-stop rear-ender, injury disputed. $23K. Placer County.
Summary
To counter the defense argument as to extent of injury, plaintiff called the treating physician from Kaiser to testify that plaintiff was an active patient with no prior spine injuries/conditions.
The Case
- Case Name: Martin v. Maynard
- Court and Case Number: Placer County Superior Court / S-CV-0038531
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, September 03, 2019
- Date Action was Filed: Thursday, October 06, 2016
- Type of Case: Vehicles - Auto vs. Auto, Vehicles – rear-ender
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Michael Jones
-
Plaintiffs: Peggy Martin, 86, retired
-
Defendants: Peggy Maynard (defendant driver)Walter Maynard (named insured on the auto policy)
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: $23,442.19
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 5 days
- Jury Deliberation Time: 3 hours
The Attorneys
-
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Andrew E. Bakos & Associates, P.C. by Andrew E. Bakos, Sacramento.
-
Attorney for the Defendant:
Sacino Bertolino & Hallissy by Richard Bertolino, Sacramento.
The Experts
-
Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Brian Hunt, M.D., treating physician.
-
Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
Peter Sfakianos, M.D., orthopedic surgery, Sacramento.
-
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Dan Trudell, accident reconstruction.
Facts and Background
-
Facts and Background:
Plaintiff was rear-ended by defendant Peggy Maynard on June 5, 2015 while at a complete stop at a red light.
Defendant Peggy Maynard was insured by Mercury Insurance with a policy limit of $100,000. This case was in litigation for over three years, in which Mercury only produced a 'top offer' of $8,000, which they later rescinded.
-
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That plaintiff suffered permanent low back injury and pain in the crash.
Plaintiff called treating pain management, Dr. Hunt, who testified future treatment would cost $100,000. Plaintiff called her treating physician from Kaiser who testified plaintiff was an active patient with no prior spine injuries, and that the crash was a substantial factor in causing her low-back injury. -
Defendant's Contentions: Defendant admitted liability but disputed nature and extent of injuries arguing 1) no visible signs of property damage, therefore no injury 2) plaintiff injuries were MIST and fully resolved no later than three months following the crash.
Injuries and Other Damages
-
Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:
Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck and back, as well as a disc protrusion at T6-7, indenting the ventral sac and contacting the right paracentral spinal cord. Her medical bills exceeded $10,000.