ILNews

Automobile accident

April 26, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Melissa Miller v. Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, Inc. and John Gocke
Marion Superior Court # 10
No. 49D10-0901-CT-002353
Injuries: Multiple physical symptoms that included headaches, dizziness, memory loss, nausea, bilateral ankle pain, right shoulder pain, mouth pain, cervical pain, thoracic pain, and lumbar pain.
Date: May 19, 2010
Judge or Jury Trial: Jury trial
Judge: Hon. David Dreyer
Disposition: Plaintiff verdict after reduction for comparative fault: $848,800
Plaintiff Attorney: Jason A. Shartzer, Louis Buddy Yosha, and Richard A. Cook, Yosha Cook Shartzer & Tisch
Defendant Attorney: Andrea Simmons, The Pollack Law Firm
Case Information: On Feb. 15, 2007, at approximately 9 a.m., plaintiff was driving her 2003 Chevy Impala northbound on North Arlington Avenue approaching East 21st Street in Indianapolis. The defendant was driving a 1997 Ford semi in the left northbound lane on North Arlington Avenue. As plaintiff was proceeding through the intersection in the right northbound lane, the defendant attempted to make a wide right hand turn onto East 21st Street. and collided with the driver’s side of the plaintiff’s vehicle.

Liability was in dispute. The plaintiff argued that defendant should have kept a proper lookout and that defendant swung so far wide to make the right turn that a portion of his trailer was actually in the dedicated left-turn lane. The plaintiff argued that had the defendant looked, he would have seen the plaintiff’s vehicle. The police officer that investigated the collision testified that a portion of the defendant’s trailer was in the dedicated left turn lane at the time of the collision. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have seen the semi’s right turn signal and known that the defendant was making a wide, right turn. The defendant also implied in argument that the plaintiff was on her cell phone at the time of the collision and introduced evidence that she was running late for work.  

Plaintiff initially refused medical attention at the scene of the collision and went to her job as a nurse for a medical doctor. She did, however, report her complaints of pain to her employer when she arrived at work, and later that day she sought medical treatment at St. Francis Hospital. She followed up with her family physician.

Plaintiff underwent MRI testing that revealed a broad-based, central disc herniation at C5-C6 with no stenosis or effacement. She was diagnosed with right cervical radiculopathy and underwent a CT scan of her head which was ultimately negative. She continued to have multiple physical symptoms and continued to undergo treatment that included consultation with a neurologist and MRIs.

Plaintiff stated in her discovery responses and testified in her deposition that she suffered from multiple injuries to multiple parts of her body with the most severe injury, in her opinion, being a brain injury. Although Melissa experienced brain injury-type symptoms, the objective tests and the information from her treating physicians was insufficient to support a claim for a brain injury related to the collision. The plaintiff’s claim for damages at trial was focused on her herniated disc at C5-C6. One of plaintiff’s treating doctors testified in advance of trial that the herniation was caused by the collision and that it was a permanent condition.

Plaintiff incurred approximately $47,600 in medical expenses, almost half of which was diagnostic in nature. She did not make a claim for wage loss. Plaintiff was 34 at the time of trial and there was testimony from her doctor that she would have future medical expenses related to her herniated disc and that she would likely become a surgical candidate.

Prior to trial, plaintiff’s last demand was $148,000 (which was withdrawn prior to trial) and the defendant’s last offer was $50,000. After the first day of trial, defendant increased its offer to $100,000. Also, prior to trial, plaintiff had suggested high/low parameters of $465,000 and $75,000. The defendant rejected the high/low parameters.

At the conclusion of a two-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1 million, but the jury also allocated the plaintiff a little more than 15 percent comparative fault. The judgment for the plaintiff after the reduction for comparative fault was $848,800.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT