Philadelphia Car and Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

One of the most eye-opening car crash cases of the past year was not extensively reported and certainly kept under wraps by the defense bar. We found it and want to let all of you know about it, because it reflects the approach our Philadelphia car and truck accident lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis regularly take with cases we have accepted and put into suit.
The facts in the case were that Plaintiff was driving her minivan and had slowed down to less than five miles an hour as she approached a controlled intersection. She heard screeching tires and was rear-ended by defendant’s car. The impact caused her to strike the car in front of her. Her injuries were soft-tissue and thought initially to be an arbitration case worth less than $50,000. A Chester County Pennsylvania panel awarded $28,220, and the attorney hired by the defendant’s insurance carrier appealed. The case was then tried in front of a jury. After hearing the evidence, the jury awarded more than $400,000.

Why was this first thought to be an arbitration case? Why did the panel award so little? Why did the defense appeal? Why was everyone so wrong about the value of the case?

Lawyers often size up an auto crash on the basis of the severity of the injuries – were there broken bones, were there severe injuries to organs, did the accident result in surgery, are the injuries permanent, did the plaintiff die? Soft tissue injuries often are viewed with skepticism by the defense and not very exciting on the surface to plaintiff firms. Obviously, the history of the case before it went to a jury bears this out as no one who looked at it with a lawyer’s eyes considered it of major proportion in any way. In fact, our Pennsylvania injury attorneys have often seen adjusters approach cases in a very cavalier manner and automatically direct defense counsel to appeal an arbitration award just to delay payment. This was evident in this rear-end collision case.

By having to look at it as a jury trial that resulted from the arbitration appeal, more work was done to develop the evidence surrounding the plaintiff’s course after the accident for these seemingly-minor injuries. She claimed continuing chronic back pain as a result of the accident. Her treating chiropractor testified saying that she suffered from permanent chronic sprain syndrome attributable to the accident with defendant, which would cause pain during her daily activities. The defense did not call a doctor that they hired to do an independent medical examination (IME); plaintiff did call him as a witness, because he agreed that plaintiff’s back injuries were chronic and permanent in nature. Being in the nature of an IME, and not having had pre-trial contact with the witness except to arrange for his court appearance, the court agreed that he could testify as the defense did not “own” his opinion. The combined testimony of both experts sealed the conclusion undoubtedly reached by the jury that the injuries were more serious than non-specific neck or back pain often seen in a minor accident.