Donald E. Brier v. Irene Wegner
Marion Circuit Court No. 49C01-0704-CT-0013996
Injuries: Mild traumatic brain injury; partial rotator cuff tear of left shoulder
Date: May 17-21, 2010
Judge or Jury Trial: Jury trial
Judge: Hon. Louis F. Rosenberg
Disposition: Verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,395,545, which was reduced by an assignment of 30
percent comparative fault to the plaintiff; judgment entered by court for $976,881
Plaintiff Attorneys: Thomas C. Doehrman and Daniel Buba, Doehrman Chamberlain, Indianapolis
Defendant Attorney: Jeff Crabill, State Farm Litigation Counsel, Indianapolis
Insurance: Underlying coverage of $250,000 was with State Farm. Plaintiff had UIM coverage of $1.5 million
with Nationwide.
Case Information: Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on 64th Street in the Broad Ripple neighborhood of Indianapolis
on July 5, 2005, when the defendant backed her SUV directly into his path. Upon impact, the plaintiff busted out the rear
window of the SUV. He was taken from the scene by ambulance and was diagnosed at the ER with a left shoulder injury and a
concussion. He was released the same evening from the ER.
Thereafter, plaintiff treated continuously for the effects of a mild traumatic brain injury and has been unable to continue
employment as an attorney. He also underwent a successful surgery for his rotator cuff tear.
The past medical expenses were $55,545, and future medical expenses were claimed to be $115,000. Plaintiff also claimed lost
wages both past and future of $750,000.
The defendant’s accident reconstructionist testified that the plaintiff had ample time to avoid the defendant’s
vehicle and that the collision occurred because he was not paying attention to the roadway ahead of him. This testimony was
in direct conflict with the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the collision who testified that there was nothing the plaintiff
could do to avoid colliding with the SUV.
The defendant’s expert damage witnesses claimed that plaintiff’s brain injury was very mild and completely healed
within a few months of the collision. It was the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s ongoing problems
were not related to any injury sustained in the collision. The defendant disputed the future medical expenses and future wages
that the plaintiff was claiming.
The plaintiff’s expert witnesses included a neurologist, neuropsychologist, and neuroradiologist. The defendant’s
experts included a neuropsychologist, neuroradiologist, and an accident reconstructionist.
After five days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,395,545. This amount
was reduced by an assignment of 30 percent comparative fault to the plaintiff and judgment was entered by the court for $976,881.•
– Thomas C. Doehrman














With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.
In regards to bill's comment about trusting the cover meant. We can trust them about as much as we can trust attorneys'.
This is disturbing to learn...