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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT