Motor vehicle accident: rear-end collision

September 9, 2015
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Trial Reports: Reports on recent Indiana cases submitted by the lawyers involved.

Motor vehicle accident: rear-end collision

Name of Case: Dennis R. Thomas and Luisa Thomas v. Phyllis A. Isenhower

Court Case Number: 72C01-1307-CT-000027

Injuries: neck, back, wrist, hip, headaches

Court: Scott Circuit Court 1

Court Date: July 21-23, 2015

Trial Type: Jury trial

Judge: Hon. Roger L. Duvall

Disposition: Jury verdict for plaintiffs

Plaintiff Attorney: Heidi Kendall-Sage and R. Patrick Magrath; Madison, Indiana

Defendant Attorney: William H. Mullis; Mitchell, Indiana

Insurance: Western Reserve Mutual Casualty Company

Case Information: This case arose after a bumper-to-bumper accident in the McDonald’s drive-thru lane in Scottsburg, Indiana. On Sept. 17, 2011, the defendant’s foot released pressure from the brake pedal, and her car rolled forward and tapped the rear bumper of the plaintiffs’ car. Plaintiff wife was taken by EMS to the local hospital for examination for neck, back, right hip, and right wrist pain (all x-rays negative). Nine days later, both plaintiffs next sought care and began courses of treatment with a local chiropractor with follow-up treatment by a local physical therapist. The jury trial in the Scott Circuit Court lasted three days. The evidence at trial indicated there was virtually no physical damage to either car (small scuff on plaintiffs’ plastic rear bumper cover). Plaintiffs testified concerning their immediate onset of pain, the nature and severity of their pain, and that they had lingering pain from the accident. Plaintiff wife testified that her primary care provider (nurse practitioner) recommended an MRI but they could not afford it. Plaintiffs’ treating chiropractor and physical therapist testified concerning plaintiffs’ complaints, conditions and their respective treatment. The defendant testified that she was not sure what happened (foot released pressure from brake pedal or slipped off brake pedal, another car pushed hers into plaintiffs’ or plaintiffs backed into her car). The defense also called a consulting chiropractor to testify that the plaintiffs’ treatment was excessive and the charges unnecessary and that their claims of severe pain and residual pain were not caused by the accident. The consulting chiropractor also testified that if plaintiffs’ conditions had not substantially improved within a couple of weeks after the accident they should have tried something else. The jury deliberated for two hours. The parties submitted to mediation, and the last settlement positions were that plaintiffs demanded $20,000.00 (Dennis) and $30,000.00 (Luisa), and the defendant’s carrier offered $1,000.00 and $4,000.00, respectively.

Submitting Attorney: William H. Mullis


  • amendments
    I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.