Rear-ender, minor impact with soft tissue and TBI. $6.8M. Napa County.

Injuries and Other Damages

• Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:

  As a result of the subject incident, plaintiff claimed she suffered a mild traumatic brain injury with associated cognitive deficits including short term memory issues, multi-tasking difficulty, diminution of her executive function capacity and word recall issues. Plaintiff’s physical pain included headaches, neck pain, bilateral shoulder pain, and back pain. She also experienced anxiety and fear since the subject collision.

  Directly after the collision, plaintiff denied injury and drove herself home. It was not until three days later that she saw a physician when she visited the emergency room at St. Helena Hospital. She presented at the hospital with headaches and neck pain but denied loss of consciousness. In the emergency room, she underwent evaluation and imaging studies. She was diagnosed with an acute cervical strain and a closed head injury. She was given an anti-inflammatory injection and was discharged home.

  Plaintiff’s symptoms continued despite following the doctor’s instructions to apply heat, ice, and take pain medications. She began acupuncture treatment several times a week to help manage her symptoms. However, it was hers cognitive symptoms that were worsening. On June 19, 2015, plaintiff sought help from a medical clinic in Calistoga for headaches, dizziness, forgetfulness, and pain all over her body, especially in the neck and left shoulder area. She also reported feeling that her brain was “short circuited.” She was diagnosed with post-concussive headaches. She was prescribed Hydrocodone for her headaches and was referred to undergo a head CT scan. For her neck pain, she was diagnosed with a cervical strain. She was referred to physical therapy and advised to continue acupuncture. She was also given a trial of Norco.

  Plaintiff sought chiropractic treatment in July 2016 for her ongoing physical pain and and she began seeing a neuropsychologist for her continued cognitive symptoms. By this time, plaintiff was also reporting visual and noise sensitivity, trouble sleeping, and headaches with dizziness and nausea, difficulty problem-solving, memory issues, speech issues with reduced fluency and sentence structure, difficulty comprehending what she read, and increased anxiety. She also reported difficulty focusing for more than five minutes, at which time she would experience pressure in her head followed by a sensation of tightening across her head, neck, and the rest of her body. She was diagnosed with a concussion leading to post-concussion inflammation and headaches. She was recommended neuropsychological intervention at least once a month. Plaintiff’s neuropsychologist indicated that her condition had plateaued and that she would require ongoing neuropsychological therapy and treatment to assist her in developing coping mechanisms for her closed head injury for flare-ups in her neck, shoulder, and back.

  Despite continued chiropractic, acupuncture, and neuropsychological treatment, plaintiff’s symptoms remained. Plaintiff’s treating neuropsychologist opined she had reached maximum improvement and she would remain limited in her ability to perform her normal functions. He did not believe she would ever return to her prior functioning level such that she could run her own businesses.

• At the time of the subject incident, plaintiff, acting as President of the St. Helena Olive Oil Company, a company she founded and ran for twenty years, was in the process of bringing in an investor who was to purchase newly issued shares of stock in the Company. Other shareholders in the Company would remain shareholders. As part of the investment, the agreement called for plaintiff to remain as an employee with the company for a specified period of time, thereby securing continued employment with the company. Her annual salary was to be set at $120,000 a year.

  As a result of the mild traumatic brain injury she sustained in the subject collision, she was unable to consummate the deal relative to the company in that she did not believe she could perform as required by the agreement. Plaintiff’s claim included the loss of the future income she would have received had the sale occurred.