Maximizing Value in Difficult Cases

As an attorney, I want to help people who have been wronged by the negligence of others.  In some cases, such as drunk driving, or a speeding truck, the negligence and harm are obvious.  In other cases, the negligence and harm are not so clear, and it takes focused effort to develop the evidence and obtain a recovery that is just.

In a recent case, I represented a 70 year old female passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a collision in a store parking lot.   The other driver and his passenger testified that there was no harm to the vehicles and everyone said they were ok. To them (two 20 year olds), it was merely a bump.  The police were not called.  No-one left in an ambulance. By listening to my Client, I learned that her son actually spotted body damage to the doors, which had to be repaired.  The cost was several thousand dollars.

My Client treated for radiating neck and arm pain.  She testified that she could not do what she used to do.  The defense was skeptical.  The insurance company doctor said that whatever pain she had was due to pre-existing conditions.  After all, she had been involved in an incident 10 years earlier (the air bag deployed and caused her injuries).  The injuries were similar.  Further, the defense pointed to the fact that my client had secured a handicap placard because of trouble walking.

Through it all, and especially through listening to my Client, I was able to see the following.  After a 2 year stint of treating for the earlier injury, my Client had stopped treatment.  She was better.  The medical records verified her statement.  Her neck and arm injuries from our accident, though similar, appeared to be new and to follow the parking lot collision.

A picture tells a thousand words.  When I asked my Client and her family if they had photographs of what she could do before our collision (and after the earlier incident), their faces beamed and they went to work.  For hours, I sat with my Client and her family and friends and reviewed photo albums from their Church, showing my Client spooning pierogies and standing.  These photographs were an easy platform for friends to testify as to what they saw my Client do before.  Likewise, photographs of concession stands at sporting events evoked testimony about my Client previously carrying cases of Gatorade and water and even operating booths at the professional sports arena.  The examples went on.  The facts, supported by all of these examples, established that my Client had recovered from the previous injuries, and then she was active and well before this collision.

So, we painted a scenario of before and after.  Everyone admitted that my Client could not do these activities after the incident.  The defense’s argument that the injuries had to be pre-existing really did not find support in the evidence, which became overwhelming.

At my Client’s day in court, we were able to establish that the other driver had been negligent and that his negligence caused real personal injury damages.  Our fact finder found in my Client’s favor in the amount of $70,000.

So, whether the negligence and harm are clear or need some development, I try my best to prove the case.

Michelangelo has observed:  “Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.” Likewise, I try to find the value in my Clients’ cases and communicate it in a way supported by the facts.