MAJOR PERSONAL INJURY CASE STUDIES
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #10
Case Summary - Choulkes Serious Injury from Dangerous/Defective Treadmill
TYPE OF CASE: PRODUCTS LIABILITY
CONFIDENTIAL:
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PERSONAL INJURY ONLY:
AGE & GENDER OF PLAINTIFF:
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF VERDICT: $ 660,000.00
SPECIAL DAMAGES: $ 330,000.00
GENERAL DAMAGES: $ 330,000.00
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: ERIC DAVID, ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY; DR. SIDNEY MICHAEL TOOKE, ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY AND SPINAL CARE; BRIAN BRINIG, ECONOMIST.
DEFENSE: DOUGLAS BENNETT, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING; DR. ROBERT WILSON, ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON; WILLIAM ACKERMAN, ECONOMIST.
FACTS OF CASE:
In the spring of 1996, plaintiff, a self-employed disability evaluator and fraud investigator, purchsed an Icon 750 lifestyler treadmill from the sears outlet in cerritos, ca. She used it to stay in shape, particularly following an auto accident in which she suffered a compression fracture to her back at the L-1 level.
On march 15, 1998, while working out on the treadmill while set at about 3 m.p.h., it began speeding up. Plaintiff pulled out the safety key, which was supposed to stop the treadmill, and it accelerated to full speed. Plaintiff was thrown from the treadmill and suffered injuries to her back and shoulder. Her back injury was to L4-L5, a different level than her pre-existing back injury, and it required that she undergo a laminectomy in november of 1998.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the design of the treadmill was defective and dangerous, in that the safety key failed to stop the treadmill motor when it was pulled out. Plaintiff's counsel had discovered approximately 30 other personal injury cases involving the same treadmill and the same defect, and the court let the majority of these into evidence.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the treadmill malfunction was caused by the use of the treadmill in an ungrounded outlet. Defendants contended that plaintiff's home was poorly wired, which caused electrical irregularities which damaged the treadmill computer and caused the malfunctions. Defendants also contended that plaintiff's back injuries were the result of her 1992 auto accident and had not been caused by her fall from the treadmill. Defendants contended that plaintiff had returned to her pre-accident work capabilities prior to the trial.
DAMAGES:
Medical costs related to plaintiff's back surgery: $80,000.00. Plaintiff also sought an additional $18,000.00 for a possible future shoulder surgery. Plaintiff's economist testified that her lost business income, past and future, was between $325,000.00 and $460,000.00. Defendants' economist testified that plaintiff's lost business income, past and future, amounted to $155,000.00.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
Defendants' top pre-trial offer was $150,000.00. During trial, defendants offered a structured settlement worth a total of $340,000.00, payable over 10 years. Plaintiff demanded $850,000.00 immediately prior to trial, which plaintiff later reduced to $650,000.00 when the court granted defendants' nonsuit motion as to plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
Case Summary - Marotta Settlement Report (December 10, 1997) Hon. Ricardo Torres, Judge, Superior Court - Los Angeles Central Personal Injury: Auto v. Pedestrian
Settlement Amount: $250,000.00
Case Name: Matthew Marotta v. Ramon Rubalcava, Local 660 SEIU.
Attorneys: Plaintiff's Counsel: Robert F. Brennan, Esq., Glendale
Defendant's Counsel: David Werner, Esq., Ron Wisniewski, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF DAVID WERNER, Irvine, for defendant RUBALCAVA; Bradford Miller, Esq., Susan Westover, Esq., John Browning, Esq., MURTAUGH, MILLER, MEYER & NELSON, Costa Mesa, for defendant LOCAL 660 SEIU.
FACTS:
On March 8, 1996 at approximately 10:30 p.m., plaintiff MATTHEW MAROTTA was crossing Fountain Avenue towards his apartment. He had not been drinking. Five eyewitnesses placed MAROTTA in the crosswalk at the time of the collision. Two or three eyewitnesses placed him outside of the crosswalk. Defendant RAMON RUBALCAVA was driving eastbound on Fountain at approximately 35 miles per hour. The street is zoned for 30 miles per hour. Some of the witnesses placed RUBALCAVA'S speed at a higher rate, but skid marks at the scene suggested a speed of between 35 mph and 40 mph. RUBALCAVA admitted that he had had one to two beers some hours before the incident, but maintained that he was not drunk at the time and in fact passed field sobriety tests administered by police officers shortly after the accident. RUBALCAVA's car struck MAROTTA while MAROTTA was about half-way across the street. MAROTTA's face went through the car's windshield, and his body flew from 5 feet to 20 feet in the air. RUBALCAVA'S car left 57 feet of skid marks before coming to a rest at the east end of the intersection.
MAROTTA underwent surgery to repair the open fractures of his left tibia and fibula, the laceration on the right side of his face and under his nose and the fracture of his left shoulder. He also had some skin grafts for his left leg. He had a cast applied to his left leg, and his left arm was placed in a special sling/strap. He was bound in a wheelchair upon his discharge at the end of March of 1996. Two to three months later, he underwent a hip-bond graft procedure for support of his left leg. He underwent physical therapy for about seven months for rehabilitation of his left leg and shoulder. MAROTTA incurred approximately $75,000.00 in medical and therapy expenses. Future medical expenses were estimated at $20,000.00. Although his injuries healed substantially, he yet faces residual pain and limitations as a consequence of this collision.
CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that MAROTTA was outside of the crosswalk. Defendants also contend that MAROTTA "darted" into the street without adequately looking both ways. The Los Angeles Police Officers who investigated the collision in fact cited MAROTTA's careless crossing of the street as the primary collision factor. Plaintiff contended that RUBALCAVA had been drinking and had been travelling at an excessive rate of speed. Defendants denied both contentions. Defendant LOCAL 660 SEIU also contended that RUBALCAVA was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Plaintiff contended that RUBALCAVA was coming from a job-related political event on his way to a dinner with his boss and an influential political contact from the east coast. His boss had personally invited him to this dinner, at which union business matters would be discussed. Thus, RUBALCAVA'S presence at the earlier political fundraiser was related to his job, and his attendance was job-related, and the dinner to which he was heading was job-related and at the specific request of his supervisor.
DAMAGES:
Plaintiff suffered $75,000.00 in past medical expenses, with about $20,000.00 in future medical expenses.
OTHER INFORMATION:
The settlement was reached approximately one and one-half years after the suit was filed. The $100,000.00 paid by RAMON RUBALCAVA represented his policy limits. The balance of the settlement, $150,000.00, was paid by LOCAL 660 SEIU.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
Case Summary - Perales
TYPE OF CASE: PERSONAL INJURY
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PERSONAL INJURY ONLY:
AGE & GENDER OF PLAINTIFF: Female - Approx 40
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 50,000
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: DR. DE SHAZO
DEFENSE:
FACTS OF CASE:
Plaintiff resided on property owned by gomez. While attempting to open security gate, gate fell on plaintiff's foot, badly injuring her.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that she and her husband had complained previously about the dangerous condition of the loose gate.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
That plaintiff should not have been residing at that location, as the property is not zoned as a residence, but as a work location.
DAMAGES:
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
Case Summary - Case ID Confidential
TYPE OF CASE: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PERSONAL INJURY ONLY:
AGE & GENDER OF PLAINTIFF: Female
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 15,000
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS:
PLAINTIFF:
DEFENSE: Unknown
FACTS OF CASE:
Plaintiff was injured when Defendant struck her vehicle. She sustained a hand injury. Defendant was driving his uncle's vehicle without a driver's license.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
She sustained injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident caused by Defentant.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff's damages were minimal.
DAMAGES:
Hand Injury
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
Numerous settlement discussions between the parties, eventually settled for full value of insurance policy.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.