DISCLAIMER: Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case.
Traumatic Brain Injury Alleged from Low-impact Rearender
Plaintiff was the passenger in a car in a lane of traffic that came to a stop when the vehicle in front was making a left turn.The defendant did not stop and struck the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle at a speed of 25 mph or less.There was moderate damage to the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle including the rear window shattering.Plaintiff’s car was pushed into the car in front of her, causing damage to the front end as well.Plaintiff did not lose consciousness, however she was momentarily dazed and confused.She complained her head hurt and she was taken by the EMTs to Mary Washington Hospital.In the ambulance she was assessed as having a Glasco coma scale of 15 and at the hospital she was assessed as being alert and oriented, but experiencing headache and dizziness.Subsequent to the accident the plaintiff shortly thereafter started experiencing memory, attention, and speech problems.All neuroimaging such as CAT scan and MRI were negative, all EEGs were negative, and all gross neurological exams were normal through out the course of her treatment.She underwent neuropsychological testing four different times, all of which showed some deficits consistent with brain injury, particularly in verbal learning and attention.Prior to the accident, she was employed as a policy advisor where she would have to wear a telephone headset and take calls concerning policy issues.After the accident, she was unable to continue on the telephone headset due to slow processing, attention, and divided attention difficulties.She voluntarily, with the help of her employer, down graded to a position that was more routine and did not require new learning.At the time of the trial she was working full time in that capacity.She also continued to work her part time job that she had had before the accident on the weekends, but with accommodations.
The defense in the case revolved around their neuropsychological expert, Dr. Ryan, who indicated that the plaintiff did not exhibit the typical markers of a traumatic brain injury to justify cognitive symptoms that persisted after one year.He did concede that she suffered a concussion, but testified that it was so mild in nature it did not make sense that she would still be exhibiting the deficits shown on each of the neuropsychological testing, including his own.Dr. Ryan utilized the Millon Personality Test (MCMI-III) to justify a diagnosis of a histrionic personality disorder, which he then changed during his discovery deposition to a histrionic personality trait, as it was clear that she did not meet the criteria for the diagnosis.It was Dr. Ryan’s opinion that it was that psychological factor that accounted for her not getting better and why she continued to exhibit these cognitive deficits both by history and on testing.Although his testing showed one failed effort test, overall he agreed that she exhibited good effort for the testing and was not malingering.
The automobile accident itself was defended with the excuse that the sun was glaring on the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle which made it impossible for the defendant to see the plaintiff’s brake lights.In addition, at trial there was a dispute as to whether or not the damage depicted in the plaintiff’s photographs was the actual damage from the accident.In particular, both the defendant and defendant’s daughter disputed that the plaintiff’s rear window had busted out on impact.However, the driver of the third vehicle involved in the accident remembered specifically that indeed the window had been busted out.
