Verdicts by Practice Area: Auto & Fleet Liability

Block & Scarpa (Michael Kissner; Eric Eber)

Motion to Strike Medical Bills granted

Stuart Partner Nora Bailey, Esq., prevailed on a Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s medical bills in a motor vehicle/personal injury matter styled Plaintiff v. Day Boat Seafood. Plaintiff received treatment after a rear-end accident from Dr. Kyle Moyles, who then operated on him at Intracoastal Surgery Center. Dr. Moyles failed to disclose his ownership interest in the surgical center to the Plaintiff, in violation of section 456.052, Fla. Stat. (2023). Accordingly, pursuant to section 456.053, Dr. Moyles’ bills were uncollectable due to his failure to comply with the disclosure requirements. Judge Waronicki found that because he failed to provide the required disclosures and his bills were therefore uncollectable, all charges related to Dr. Moyles and his practice, Blackstone Hand Center, were stricken and could not be presented to the jury at trial as it would result in an unfair windfall to the Plaintiff. This reduced boardable bills in the case by almost $60,000.00 and eliminated the ability for the Plaintiff to claim multiple hand/wrist surgeries as damages. Read More.

Auto & Fleet Liability; Appeals | Litigation Support

Garwood, Jack; Weinger, Daniel S.; Menendez-Aponte, Luis

Leto Law Firm (Matthew P. Leto)

Appeal Successful

Jacksonville Associate Jack Garwood secured an appellate victory after Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Confession of Error on July 31, 2023. At the trial court level, the court had held that service of process had been properly effectuated under Florida’s substituted service of process statutes. However, it was clear from the record that Plaintiff had not strictly complied with the substituted service statutes as required. The substituted service of process statutes are to be strictly complied with because of due process concerns. After reviewing the cases cited in the initial Appellate Brief, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he could not say that the statutes had been strictly complied with. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel referred to one of the cases in Appellant’s brief—Monaco v. Nealon, 810 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)—as one he could not get past. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he has never confessed error before, but that due to the cases cited in Appellant’s Brief, he had to in this case.  Read More

Bailey, Nora R.; Pahl, Benjamin S

Newlin Law 

Defense Verdict

 

On June 2, 2023, Partners, Benjamin Pahl, Esq. and Nora Bailey, Esq., obtained a complete defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in an auto liability matter styled Plaintiffs v. Capp Custom Builders and Juan Luis Raya. The lawsuit arose out of a claim by the Plaintiffs, a motorcyclist and his passenger/girlfriend, wherein it was alleged that Defendant, Juan Luis Raya, acted negligently in operating a pick-up truck and enclosed trailer, owned by Capp Custom Builders, on US-1 in Brevard County, Florida.   Mr. Raya denied liability and asserted that Plaintiff Morgan had acted negligently by failing to observe traffic, causing him to rear-end the back of Mr. Raya’s trailer as he slowed to make a legal U-turn. 

 

The Defendant driver, Mr. Raya, testified throughout litigation and at trial that he stopped and looked for at least 5 seconds before leaving the job site to turn into US-1, and never saw the Plaintiffs’ motorcycle. The Plaintiffs, however, changed their story multiple times. Initially, Plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Raya had made a U-turn illegally in front of them, causing the crash. Prior to trial, they testified that Mr. Raya cut into their lane from right to left, or that he swung too wide when making the U-turn and ‘clipped’ the motorcycle. Finally, at trial, Plaintiffs testified to a new theory of liability – namely, that they could not recall what Mr. Raya had done wrong, but that he “appeared” in the roadway like a “flash.” Defense counsel, Mr. Pahl, was able to secure testimony from Plaintiff Morgan that he ultimately did not know what the Defendant had done wrong, and that he appeared in the road “like magic.” Additionally, the jury heard testimony and saw evidence that Plaintiff Morgan did not have a motorcycle endorsement, despite testifying otherwise, and both Plaintiffs admitted they were not wearing helmets. The defense was also able to elicit testimony and introduce evidence that the Plaintiffs had been to at least three restaurant/bars prior to the accident, where Plaintiff Morgan – the driver – had been drinking. There was no evidence submitted to the jury of Mr. Morgan’s impairment. Ms. Bailey elicited testimony from the passenger, Ms. Fuller, that she could not recall how many beers Mr. Morgan had drank, though she admitted it was at least 2. Following this testimony, the defense’s medical expert, Dr. Ronald Tolchin (pain and rehabilitation specialist), walked the jury through extensive medical records from Mr. Morgan’s PCP, which showed that he had reported drinking 4 beers daily years prior to and after the accident, had chronically elevated liver enzymes, and had been repeatedly told by his doctor to cut back.

 

Additionally, Defendants’ biomechanical engineer, Charles Proctor, Ph.D., testified at trial that the motorcyclist would have had 14.86 seconds with clear view of the trailer and more than adequate time to stop or evade the crash, and rear-ended the Defendant due to a simple lack of inattentiveness, worsened by the fact he had no motorcycle endorsement and therefore lacked the proper training to respond to an impending hazard.  Despite extensive argument and objection from Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Bailey was successful in securing the accident reconstruction animation, prepared by Dr. Proctor, to be shown as a demonstrative aid during trial.  

 

Despite the clear liability issues, it was undisputed that the two motorcyclists were catastrophically injured, both requiring emergency trauma surgeries and sustaining mild traumatic brain injuries. Both underwent extensive rehabilitation stays and post-operative therapy, and Mr. Morgan required additional, subsequent surgeries to repair damage caused by the accident. Nonetheless, Dr. Tolchin opined that a right hip replacement, done more than 3 years after the accident, was unrelated to the crash given the severe degenerative osteoarthritis present on the day of the incident. Additionally, Ms. Bailey was successful in striking both Plaintiffs’ future medical expense claims, as Plaintiffs failed to produce anyone to testify as to medical cathey would need on an ongoing basis. 

 

Over the course of four days, the jury listened to the Plaintiffs testify about the devastating impact of the incident and the injuries on their lives.  In fact, the Plaintiffs called the defense CME physician (Dr. Tolchin) during their case to explain the gruesome nature of the injuries, which included pelvic, rib, and sternum fractures, extensive lacerations, and scrotal tears.  Plaintiff’s testimony that the Defendant driver appeared in the roadway like “magic” became the theme of the defense case, and it was argued by Mr. Pahl in closing that “more than magic” was necessary for Plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof. The jury was instructed on Florida’s rear-end presumption at the request of the defense, over objection and after substantial briefing on the issue by Ms. Bailey, that Mr. Morgan rear-ending the Defendant was presumptive evidence of his own negligence.

 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Lead Trial Counsel for Dan Newlin, asked the jury in closing for an award of $7.4M (approximately $312,000 in total past medical expenses; the rest in pain and suffering). After deliberating for about two hours, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in favor of Mr. Raya and Capp Custom Builders.  Read More.

Ruiz, Juan A., Hamilton, Benjamin B

Morgan and Morgan (Michael J. Smith and Meranda Landes)

Favorable Verdict

On February 2, 2023, Senior Partner Juan Ruiz, Esq., and Associate Benjamin Hamilton, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a motor vehicle accident matter styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Driver in the Fifth Circuit Court in and for Lake County, Florida. Plaintiff sought damages for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.

The defense admitted liability and moved forward to a four-day jury trial on causation, permanency and damages. At trial, Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.8 million. The jury returned a verdict of $46,000 and specifically found that Plaintiff did not suffer any permanent injury.  Plaintiff alleged that while she was parked exiting a shopping center, she was struck on the driver’s side of her SUV by Defendant Driver’s pickup truck travelling at 35mph. She claimed to have sustained three herniated discs in her spine as a result of the incident.  Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.8 million using a per diem argument that Plaintiff should be awarded $5 per hour for the two years since the accident and $3.00 per hour for the estimated 45 years she is projected to live under Mortality Table guidelines. The jury awarded Plaintiff only $46,000 for past medical bills. The jury found no permanent injury and did not award damages for future medical bills or pain and suffering. Read More.

Pahl, Benjamin S.; Bailey, Nora R

Dan Newlin Injury Attorneys 

Favorable Verdict

Admitted Liability Brevard County; Dan Newlin Injury Attorneys; 27-year old with Lumbar Spine Surgery; $750,000 sought, only $48,993 awarded; no future medical treatment or pain & suffering awarded.

On January 27, 2023, Stuart Managing Partner Benjamin Pahl, Esq., and Senior Partner Nora Bailey, Esq., recently received a great verdict in Brevard County. The matter styled Plaintiff v. Neil Bailey and Bartels Forest Products involved admitted liability with a dump truck and trailer that had rear-ended Plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff was 27 years old, with no prior injuries or treatment. She underwent a lumbar spine surgery with $118K in medical bills. At trial, her treating neurosurgeon recommended approx. $750K in future medical treatments, including an ACDF and two-level lumbar fusion. We represented a lumber company and its driver who were in town from Illinois doing clean-up after Hurricane Irma. Our defense focused on undermining the doctor’s credibility using the fact that he often accepted far less for patients who were not involved in litigation than the charges he’d billed under a Letter of Protection to the Plaintiff. We also focused on surveillance of the Plaintiff, showing the jury that her claimed damages were inconsistent with her actions.

In closings, Plaintiff’s counsel - Lead Trial Counsel for Dan Newlin - asked for $750K for future meds, $118K for past meds, and an unlimited number for pain and suffering. After a five day trial and deliberating for 3+ hours, the jury came back with an award for past medicals of $48K — specifically excluding all treatment and surgery from her LOP neurosurgeon. They awarded no futures, no permanency, and no pain and suffering.  Read More

Veith, George J.; Edwards, Valerie R.

Syfrett, Dykes & Furr (Clayton R. Syfrett and Douglas B. Dykes) and Seymore Justice (Talley L. Kaleko)

Favorable Verdict

MVA-Pedestrian Struck Tried on Damages only - Bay County; Syfrett, Dykes & Furr and Seymore Justice; 21-year old Pedestrian Struck; $9.7M sought, $1.2M awarded.

Partners G. John Veith, Esq. and Valerie Edwards, Esq., obtained a favorable verdict on January 21, 2023 in a motor vehicle accident in Bay County involving a pedestrian struck on sidewalk in the matter styled Plaintiff v. Jake Piekarski and Kimberly Piekarski. The case had been pulled from another well-known national defense firm and reassigned to Luks Santaniello for trial. By the time of the reassignment, critical deadlines had been missed including the deadline for disclosure of experts. Despite these setbacks, the defense succeeded in retaining experts for trial, although the experts were not permitted to conduct an in-person physical examination of the Plaintiff. The case was tried on damages only. Plaintiff waived her past medical expense and past and future wage loss claims. Due to a pretrial ruling by the court, the defense was not permitted to offer evidence that Norway, where plaintiff continued to reside, has socialized medicine.

 At trial, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $9.7 million, including $3.4 million in future medical care costs, and $6.3 million in past and future pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement and loss of enjoyment of life. The jury returned a total verdict of $1.2M.

The Plaintiff was a 21-year-old female exchange student attending the University of Minnesota from Kristiansand, Norway. Plaintiff, who had come to Panama City for spring break, was walking with two of her friends on the sidewalk at the corner of an intersection in order to cross the street to her hotel when she was struck by a motor vehicle. Surveillance video obtained from a nearby establishment captured the accident and showed the Plaintiff was thrown into the air and landed on the concrete approximately 15 to 20 feet away. The accident was caused by the defendant, Jake Piekarski, who fell asleep at the wheel after having driven all night across the country with some friends for spring break. Alcohol and drugs were not a factor in causing the accident. There was no legitimate basis to argue Plaintiff was comparatively at fault because the evidence showed she was properly on the sidewalk at the time of the accident. Prior to trial, the defendants admitted liability and the case was tried on the damages issues only.

As a result of the impact, Plaintiff claimed she sustained a permanent traumatic brain injury with post-concussive symptoms of impaired memory, attention span and language abilities. Plaintiff sustained a left orbital skull fracture, a full-thickness tear of her left anterior cruciate ligament, soft tissue injuries to her left shoulder and left hip. Plaintiff also claimed anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Plaintiff’s experts testified that, while an initial CT scan failed to show an organic injury to the brain from the impact, a subsequent MRI revealed a lesion on the right frontal lobe. Plaintiff’s experts claimed this lesion was a result of the accident, dismissing the radiologist’s finding that it could have been evidence of subcortical dysplasia, a congenital condition. Plaintiff’s doctors also opined that a DTI (diffuse tensor imaging) scan showed Plaintiff’s brain activity at more than two standard deviations downward. Plaintiff’s experts opined that their diagnosis of a permanent brain injury was based on the surveillance video of the accident together with the result of the DTI. Neuropsychological testing conducted in Norway, and in Plaintiff’s native language, failed to reveal any significant cognitive impairments. However, Plaintiff presented evidence of subsequent neuropsychological testing performed by Kevin Groom, a neuropsychologist hired by plaintiff’s counsel, which showed impairment, mostly in categories of testing involving language and speech function. The defense called Dr. Michael Herkov, who testified that the neuropsychological testing performed by Dr. Groom would be expected to include some findings of impairment because the testing was not conducted in Plaintiff’s native language.

Plaintiff’s left orbital fracture healed with conservative treatment and her left ACL was surgically repaired in Norway. Plaintiff’s retained orthopedic surgeon provided opinions that she would likely develop early onset osteoarthritis in her left knee which would likely require her to need a total knee replacement at a young age, followed by a revision surgery. The defense presented testimony of Dr. Troy Lowell, who opined that there was no medical evidence to support this claim. Dr. Lowell testified total knee replacements are typically only needed after ACL reconstructive surgery where there is also evidence of a meniscal injury. Neither the treating radiologist nor the surgeon in Norway had found evidence of any meniscal injury on the MRI scan.

Plaintiff also presented medical testimony from Dr. Deborah Simkin and Dr. Kevin Groom that she continued to suffer from PTSD as a result of the impact. The defense showed that Plaintiff had not been diagnosed with PTSD until 2018, one month after she had been the victim of a violent sexual assault, according to legal records from a Norwegian court, and based on medical records pre- and post-assault.

Plaintiff called Dr. Craig Lichtblau and Dr. Bernard Pettingill, Jr. to testify regarding her future medical care needs and expenses. Dr. Lichtblau opined that Plaintiff would need orthopedic, neurological and pain management care for life, including two surgeries on her left knee, injections and other pain management for her low back due to instability in her left knee, plastic surgery for her scarring, and in-home nursing care due to an anticipated early onset of dementia. Dr. Pettingill testified the present value of her future medical care was $3.4 million.

Read More

Ruiz, Juan A.; Gargano, Christine N

Morgan & Morgan (W. Colby Roof)

Defense Verdict

MVA; Admitted negligence Sumter County; Morgan &  Morgan; 48-year old with Cervical fusion; $2.28M sought; $26,000 awarded; no permanency, no futures, and no pain and suffering.

On February 17, 2023, Senior Partner, Juan A. Ruiz, Esq., and Junior Partner, Christine N. Gargano, Esq., obtained a defense verdict in Sumter County in a motor vehicle negligence matter styled Plaintiff v. Timothy Tredwell. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, Timothy Tredwell, as a result of alleged injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident on August 16, 2016. Plaintiff specifically claimed that Defendant was negligent by backing into her vehicle causing injuries to her back, right shoulder, and neck resulting in a cervical fusion. Plaintiff had a prior accident in 2008 resulting in injuries but denied any ongoing issue since 2011 and denied any prior right shoulder issues. Plaintiff presented her surgeon, expert life care planner, and expert radiologist at trial who all testified her injuries were permanent, future treatment was necessary, and all treatment and injuries sustained were caused by the 2016 accident.

Defendant admitted negligence. The defense argued that the low impact accident did not cause the injuries alleged but rather the 2008 accident did and as such all treatment was unrelated to the 2016 accident. Defense expert radiologist and compulsory medical examination doctor testified that the Plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries continued to worsen as result of the 2008 accident and was the cause of her treatment. Defense expert biomechanical expert also testified the impact from the 2016 accident could not have caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Plaintiff asked the Jury to award the Plaintiff $2.28 million for her past medicals of over $196,000, future medicals of over $401,000, and past and future pain and suffering of over $1.68 million. The defense asked the jury to give the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and award her $26,000 for the costs of her initial emergency room visit to get checked out. The jury agreed with the defense and returned a defense verdict of $26,000 with no permanency, no futures, and no pain and suffering.  Read More

Menendez-Aponte, Luis; Ferreyra, Edgardo

Lonnie B. Richardson, P.A. (Michael Compo and Lonnie Richardson)

Motion for Summary Judgment for Defendant

Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq., and Appellate Partner Edgardo Ferreyra, Esq., obtained a summary judgment in an auto negligence matter styled Manuel Castillo v. Ulysses Lopez. The primary issue on the case involved whether Plaintiff had presented evidence to establish he was even a passenger in the vehicle crashed by Defendant. Plaintiff was not listed on the traffic crash report. The Defense argued it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff had failed to present evidence or an explanation as to why his name was not included in the traffic crash report, and thus the presumption under Florida Statute section 316.068(2)(g) that he was not involved in the accident was unrebutted. The Defense argued that this omission from the traffic crash report was fatal to Plaintiff’s negligence action, because Florida statutory law holds that in “[t]he absence of information in such written crash reports regarding the existence of passengers in the motor vehicles involved in the crash constitutes a rebuttable presumption that no such passengers were involved in the reported crash.” Fla. Stat. § 316.068(2)(g). The vehicle Plaintiff claimed he was travelling in had four passengers, all of which had met earlier in the evening at a bar. Plaintiff claimed that immediately after the accident, he walked away from the accident scene and did not wait for police to arrive. Three of the four passengers did not recognize Plaintiff at all, and the officer would not amend his report to include Plaintiff because he did not recognize him as being a part of the accident. Only one of the passengers placed Plaintiff in the vehicle, but she was admittedly drunk, stoned, and her account directly contradicted Plaintiff’s version of events in that she testified that Plaintiff actually remained on the scene and spoke with the police. The crux of our argument was that Plaintiff failed to present “credible evidence” to overcome the rebuttable presumption under section 316.068(2)(g). Therefore, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The Court agreed. Read more

Sparkman, James T; Weinger, Daniel S.

J. Curtis Boyd, P.A. (J. Curtis Boyd, Esq.)

Summary Judgment

(2) A contractor who constructs, maintains, or repairs a highway, road, street, bridge, or other transportation facility for the Department of Transportation is not liable to a claimant for personal injury, property damage, or death arising from the performance of the construction, maintenance, or repair if, at the time of the personal injury, property damage, or death, the contractor was in compliance with contract documents material to the condition that was the proximate cause of the personal injury, property damage, or death.

Plaintiff suffered spinal injuries diagnosed by MRI, and also allegedly suffered PTSD. The Plaintiff’s dog was in the car and was also uninjured. Plaintiff is a 52 year old lawyer for Homeland Security. Defendant has moved for attorney fees and costs based on the Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement in the amount of $2,500. Similarly, Defendant has filed a motion for prevailing party costs under Florida Statute 57.041. 

Dan Newlin Injury Attorney (Michael Donsky)

Motor Vehicle Accident | Court Upheld Order Dismissing Lawsuit without Prejudice and Granted Defendant's Motion for Costs

Dismissal of UM Carrier

Stuart Senior Partner Chris Moore, Esq., obtained a dismissal of the UM carrier in the matter styled UM Claimant v. Co-defendant Alleged Tortfeasor and UM Carrier (Client). Plaintiff filed a suit for UM benefits arising out of an alleged red light violation turn accident against an out of country alleged tortfeasor. Our UM carrier client was served and we were able to locate the alleged tortfeasor in Canada and discovered they had significant liability limits. We obtained a dismissal of the UM carrier without payment of any settlement funds. Read more

Affirmed Dismissal

Senior Partner Chris Moore, Esq., and Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger, Esq., obtained a good result in a vehicular liability matter when the appellate court affirmed dismissal in the matter styled BI claimant v. Client. Plaintiff filed suit against a driver and his employer alleging personal injuries, including epidural injections and a multi-level lumbar fusion surgery that Plaintiff alleged arose from a rear-end car accident. Shortly after filing suit, Plaintiff dismissed the driver voluntarily, electing to only pursue the employer and then deposing the employee driver while he was not a party to the case and was not represented by an attorney. Many months later, after discovery was completed and the case set for trial, Plaintiff amended their complaint to bring the driver back into the case. We were retained to represent the driver and immediately filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, which expired before he was added back into the case. In response, Plaintiff argued that the relation back doctrine applied. Following full briefing and a thorough argument at a hearing, we fully briefed the trial court on the applicable law and facts and the trial judge granted our motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. Read more

Dismissal with Prejudice

Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner, William Peterfriend, Esq., and Boca Raton Junior Partner, Erin O’Connell, Esq., obtained a Dismissal with Prejudice following a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pleadings. In the matter styled George Acevedo v. Fitzgerald Auto Sales and Celia T. Fitzgerald, Plaintiff, George Acevedo, claimed damages stemming from a motor vehicle accident and alleging negligence against the driver, Celia Fitzgerald, and vicarious liability against Fitzgerald Auto Sales. Plaintiff claimed injuries to his neck, low back and left shoulder as a result, and initially demanded $250,000. 

Defendants’ sought to have Plaintiff examined by their expert through a Compulsory Medical Examination, which was mutually coordinated and scheduled with Plaintiff and his attorney. After Plaintiff’s failure to appear, Defendants’ obtained an Order on their Motion to Secure a Compulsory Medical Examination. Defendants diligently documented all communications with Plaintiff’s counsel in attempting to set and hold the CME, yet, once again, Plaintiff failed to make himself available for examination. As it was apparent that Plaintiff refused to cooperate in litigation, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike Pleadings. On June 17, 2021, the Honorable Judge Kastrenakes entered an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pleadings, striking Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Dismissing the Case With Prejudice due to multiple intentional and willful violations of Court Orders directing compliance with discovery obligations by the Plaintiff. Read more.

Menendez-Aponte, Luis; Santaniello, Daniel J.

Menendez Trial Attorneys (Jose M. Menendez); Ralph O. Anderson, P.A. (Ralph Anderson)

Net Verdict of $590,751

Tender of $1M Policy Limits Rejected - $13,023,932 Jury Demand - 2-Week Trial Miami – Net Verdict $590,751.

On April 1, 2022, Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq., and Managing Partner Daniel Santaniello, Esq. obtained a favorable result in a motorcycle accident matter that occurred on northbound Turnpike just north of Florida City. Plaintiffs jointly asked for $13.1 Million dollars. The $1M policy limits had been tendered and rejected well in advance of trial. The jury apportioned liability 50% to the Plaintiff(s), 10% to the fabre driver, and 40% to the Defendant Abby Tingjing Lu resulting in a net verdict of $590,751.

The case styled Plaintiffs vs. Abby Tingjing Lu was tried over the course of two weeks before Judge Charles Johnson in Miami-Dade County. Our client insured was a Chinese resident living in New York City and was visiting the Florida Keys. She had rented a vehicle from Hertz and was heading back to Fort Lauderdale when the accident happened. Plaintiff was a Cuban-American and Miami resident. His wife, a registered trauma nurse with the Jackson Memorial Health Care System, was on the back of a motorcycle at the time of the accident. Coincidently they were both airlifted to Jackson from this accident. The jury was comprised of five Cuban Americans and one African American.

Our Client encountered some debris on the turnpike and attempted to swerve to avoid it. Nine witnesses testified regarding the accident. There was a dispute over the existence and extent of the debris and a dispute over the actions of our client.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant improperly failed to avoid the debris like other cars that had successfully maneuvered around it according to witnesses. They suggested she was looking at her phone using it for GPS navigation. They claimed that the Event Data Recorder supported that our client moved into the shoulder and then abruptly moved back into the travel lane at only 5.6 mph, striking the motorcycle. They called expert engineer Ralph Aronberg, P.E. who testified the defendant was totally at fault for the accident.

The Defense disputed liability. We called motorcycle expert and engineer Alan Moore to the stand to testify that the plaintiff was following too closely. The Court did not allow us to present evidence that the plaintiff did not have a motorcycle endorsement.

The injuries to both plaintiffs’ were significant. Plaintiff motorcycle operator, was catapulted at 65 mph into the median and sustained significant lower right extremity injuries involving degloving injuries, a shattered femur, shattered ankle. He can no longer walk without pain and severe limp and needs to undergo at least two further surgeries, including an ankle fusion which was not disputed by the defense medical experts. He required four surgeries to save the leg. He did not have health insurance so his specials totaled $906,214.

Plaintiff girlfriend-passenger and now wife, also was catapulted onto the left lane, where she sustained a fractured femur, and required emergency surgery to align and fixate it. She continues to suffer from pain and limitations due to her leg. Her medical bills were $100,003. It is significant to note both plaintiffs are very young – in their late twenties when the accident happened.

Opposing counsel, Jose Menendez, a renowned Miami tobacco trial lawyer, asked the jury for $9,000,000 in pain and suffering for Plaintiff motorcycle operator and $3,020,715 in pain and suffering for Plaintiff passenger. The total damages requested in closing argument were $9,906,214 for Plaintiff motorcycle operator and $3,117,718 for Plaintiff passenger, both totaling $13,023,932.00.

More than 20 witnesses were called to this trial, including eight plaintiff medical experts. The defense employed two key strategies to deal with the sympathy/prejudice associated with a Miami trial involving a Cuban-American plaintiff versus a Chinese resident of New York; and a reasonable pain and suffering award in light of the facts. These strategies were employed in jury selection and closing arguments and helped deliver a verdict wherein the jury gave less than the defense even suggested for non-economic damages.  Please feel free to reach out directly to Dan Santaniello to discuss this result further.  

Bringardner, John M., Kerwin, Michael A

Dismissal Within Hours of Filing Motion for Summary Judgment

Moore, Christopher S.; Sparkman, James T

Defense Verdict on Causation

Admitted Liability; $173,000 2-level Cervical Disk Replacement; $618,000 Life Care Plan; Jury Defense Verdict on December 3, 2020.

Partners Chris Moore, Esq., (Stuart) and Jim Sparkman, Esq., (Boca Raton) tried a Post-Covid case to defense verdict in a rear-end accident case. The trial represented the first Post-Covid civil trial in the 19th Judicial Circuit. Before trial, we admitted liability on behalf of the defendants and vigorously defended causation.

Plaintiff called 3 treating medical providers (Dr. Stuart Krost, Dr. Harold Bach and Dr. Michael Hennings) and retained and called a neuro-radiologist (Dr. Eric Pfeiffer) to testify the accident was the cause of plaintiff’s injuries and surgery. Plaintiff incurred over $173,000 in medical bills, stemming primarily from a 2 level cervical disk replacement. In addition, the Plaintiff obtained a life care plan by Dr. Stuart Krost for future medicals in excess of $618,000. Plaintiff contended that he essentially never had prior neck problems and that the few prior medical visits he had with neck pain years prior were temporary, far less severe and he had not treated for more than 2 years prior to the subject DOA.

The defense focused on the property damage photographs and used a mechanical engineer to explain to the jury the low forces involved in the subject incident. In addition, the defense used board certified surgeon Dr. Gaetano Scuderi to opine that image studies did not support any recent injury to the spine from the subject accident, but showed long standing, chronic degenerative changes. The defense expert explained to the jury how the prior disc problems would not heal themselves, but would grow worse over time and lead to the need for the actual disc replacement surgery that occurred in this case. The defense also vigorously challenged plaintiff’s treating physicians on their billing and ownership interest in Ambulatory Surgery Center of Boca Raton, which was allegedly not disclosed to the plaintiff in violation of Florida Law. The defense was able to get a special instruction on Section 456.052, Florida Statutes, which requires surgeons to disclose financial interests that they may have in facilities, such as a surgery center. Read more

Dismissal

PIP Partner Jairo Lanao, Esq., obtained dismissal in the matter styled Jorge Perez v. United Automobile Insurance Co. The lawsuit was filed in 2012 on behalf of United Auto’s named insured, Jorge Perez, for an auto accident on February 24, 2011, in which he was driving his wife’s vehicle. After receiving treatment for his injuries at a chiropractor and medical doctor, United Auto denied payment of his medical expenses on the grounds that his wife’s vehicle was not insured by United Auto, but by Travelers Insurance.  Thus, it fell under an exclusion clause of the policy which precluded coverage of a claim occurring in a vehicle owned by any of the named insured spouses but not listed on the policy. The Plaintiff filed a claim for a declaratory judgment, seeking to have the court declare that at a minimum, the two insurers, United Auto and Travelers, should pay “pro rata” or, alternatively, United Auto should be liable as the husband was its named insured and, as such, United could not deny coverage as to his own spouse’s vehicle.The United Auto policy, just like the Travelers policy, contained a general definition of a “named insured and the spouse if a resident of the named insured”. United Auto’s motion for summary judgment called attention to the fact that both the United Auto and Travelers policies contained the same definition of a named insured and their spouses, as well as the exclusion clause pertaining to a vehicle owned by a spouse but not listed on the policy.   Mr. Lanao, on behalf of United, served a motion for sanctions supported by case law from several courts of appeal tracking similar policy language and holdings of no right of recovery. Persuaded by Mr. Lanao’s arguments, Plaintiff’s counsel was forced to dismiss the case within the 21-day safe harbor period and prior to the hearing on the still pending motion for summary judgment. Read more

Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court

Laurette Balinsky, Esq., obtained a favorable result when the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for fraud on the court. In the matter styled Freeman v. Adkins and Citrus Auto, Plaintiff was claiming injuries and damages stemming from an automobile accident. Plaintiff alleged severe injuries. Through discovery, the defense was able uncover inconsistencies and false statements made by the Plaintiff under oath. The defense obtained records from Plaintiff’s employer which completely contradicted much of Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her wage claim and alleged limitations. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss based on the clear and unequivocal false statements made under oath. Read more

Final Summary Judgment

On July 9, 2019, Miami Partners Heather Calhoon, Esq. and  Appellate Partner Edgardo Ferreyra, Esq. obtained final summary judgment in the matter of Butler v. Wolthuis The case involved a motor vehicle versus pedestrian accident. The Plaintiff was struck by the defendant driver as she attempted to cross a busy Miami roadway. Plaintiff alleged severe physical injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. At the summary judgment hearing, it was successfully argued that the plaintiff had failed to produce any record evidence that the driver had been negligently operating his vehicle at the time the incident occurred. Read more

Favorable Verdict

On August 22, 2019, Tampa Partner, Jeffrey Benson, Esq. obtained a favorable verdict in a four day jury trial styled Bass v. Lorence. In the case, the Defendant side-swiped the Plaintiff and then fled the scene of the accident. After undergoing surgery, the Plaintiff planned to present nearly $100,000 in medical bills to the jury.  Defense counsel limited Plaintiff’s medical bills to what was actually paid by Medicaid, instead of what was originally billed to Medicaid.  This reduced the medical bills to $35,000.  During the case, the Defense showed that approximately $21,000 (of the $35,000) was for “pain management” in the form of Oxycodone. Read more

Auto & Fleet Liability, Premises Liability

Motion to Dismiss

On May 8, 2018, Tampa Senior Associate, Michael Bohnenberger, Esq. obtained a case dismissal and entry of final judgment for the Defendants in the matter styled Gass, Carey vs. William Young Warren and HCW Transport Company, LLC.  On August 14, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the case for Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service of process within 120 days per Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j).  On February 7, 2018, the Court heard argument on Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Case. Read More

Motion for Summary Judgment

A Motion for Summary Judgment was granted  in the case of Gonzalez v. Avis Rent A Car.  Judge Arzola granted our Motion for Summary Judgment today on a claim of negligence against Avis Rent A Car System under Florida’s Unattended Motor Vehicle Statute. Plaintiff was injured when an Avis rental vehicle, driven by an individual who gained access to the vehicle, struck Plaintiff’s car and then struck the Plaintiff. Read More

Daniel J. Santaniello; Moore, Christopher S.

Defense Verdict

On June 27, 2018, Managing Partner Dan Santaniello, Esq. and Boca Raton Junior Partner Chris Moore, Esq. obtained a defense verdict in a motor vehicle accident in a negligence case styled Keith Friberg v. Defendant Driver.  Plaintiff claimed he was physically attacked from behind while going to the bathroom at a gentlemen's club by Defendant's friend, then had to leave to avoid further attack by the other friends of the attacker.  Plaintiff testified that he kicked and stomped his attacker in self-defense, then drove away while Defendant Driver and his friends pounded on his car to continue the attack.  After thinking he had successfully avoided further confrontation, Plaintiff testified at trial that he saw Defendant Driver travel across four lanes of traffic on I-95 and ram into his vehicle, causing both vehicles to crash into the concrete barrier at 70 mph, and skid about 100 yards, totaling both vehicles and causing all of the airbags in Plaintiff's vehicle to go off.  Read More

Stuart L. Cohen, Luis Menendez-Aponte

Defense Verdict

Miami Managing Partner Stuart Cohen, Esq. and Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq.  obtained a defense verdict on 12/15/2017 in the automobile liability matter styled Arianny Pinero vs. Laura Ruiz. The Defendant admitted negligence in causing the accident, but denied that her negligence was the legal cause of any loss, damage or injury to the Plaintiff.  Plaintiff demanded $350,000. The Plaintiff underwent an MRI which revealed a herniation at C3-C4 and a bulge at L4-L5. Read More

Motion for Summary Judgment

Tallahassee Partner James Waczewski and Associate Alec Masson, Esq. obtained a Summary Judgment in premises liability matter styled David Sisam and Julie Sisam v. Sandestin Owners Association.  The case involved a Doctor who sued Sandestin Owner’s Association (“Sandestin”) for an incident where he was hit by a Shipes Landscaping Truck (“hired by “Sandestin”) while riding his bicycle. Prior to filing suit, he executed a general release which specifically released  Shipes Landscaping and Old Dominion (Shipes’ Insurer) along with “all other corporations”, “Associations”, etc. Read More

Motion for Final Summary Judgment DEC Action

Tallahassee Associate Alec Masson prevailed on a Motion for Final Summary Judgment in the Dec Action matter styled Ascendant Commercial Insurance v. Best of Bricks, et al . Read More

Defense Verdict

On April 27, 2016, Dan Santaniello and Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict in an MVA tender rejection case tried where Plaintiffs asked the Jury for $42 million at trial. The case was featured in an article in the Daily Business Review on June 16, 2016, “Miami Driver Avoids Liability in Crash With Drunken Driver” by Celia Ampel. The case styled Clairmeda Simeon as guardian of Vilbrun Simeon and Kedlen Joachim v. Michelett Auguste and Lanea Everett was venued in Miami-Dade County.  After eight days of trial and nearly 7 hours of deliberation, the jury entered a Defense verdict for Defendant Michelett Auguste finding that he was not negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle.  Plaintiff Simeon is in a persistent vegetative state and Plaintiff Joachim has a permanent seizure disorder.   Defendant, Michelette Auguste, was the only party represented who had insurance coverage.  Policy limits were tendered but rejected and the case went to trial.  The Plaintiffs also presented the testimony of life care planner Lawrence Forman in support of their request for a $19,856,000 life care plan.  Through the testimony of the defense engineer Roland Lamb, PE, the defense was able to establish that Plaintiffs’ expert engineer’s analysis was faulty and that the physical evidence supported our version of the accident.   Read More

Kazandra Bern v. Dafne Acevedo and Marcelle Camejo

Favorable Verdict

Dan Santaniello received a favorable verdict in the motor vehicle accident matter styled Kazandra Bern v. Dafne Acevedo and Marcelle Camejo on February 18, 2016. The matter went back to trial four times. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for $4.6 million. Plaintiff underwent a total of 5 surgeries, including a tibiocalcaneal fusion. At the time of trial, Ms. Bern’s past medical expenses totaled $966,759.  Plaintiff called rehabilitation specialist (life care planner), Larry Foreman, C.R.A. who testified that Plaintiff will need approximately $489,000 in future medical care over the remainder of her lifetime consisting of office visits, medications, injections and physical therapy. Prior to the accident, Ms. Bern worked as a medical transcriptionist earning $15.00 per hour. Her past and future loss of earning claim totaled $288,684.00. The jury found Plaintiff comparative negligence 11.67%, Fabre Defendant 50% and Defendant 38.33%. After set–offs, the net effective verdict was $447,984, well below pre-trial offers. Read More

Luis Menendez-Aponte, Daniel J. Santaniello

Defense Verdict

Managing Partner Dan Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict on January 8, 2016 in the motor vehicle accident matter styled Evelia Rodriguez v. Humberto Torres.  The accident occurred when the Defendant, Humberto Torres, rear-ended the Plaintiff, causing significant property damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant pled the affirmative defense of sudden loss of consciousness.  According to the Defendant, the accident happened when he lost consciousness due to the sudden onset of an epileptic seizure, a condition he had never suffered from before this accident. Read More

Auto & Fleet Liability; Trucking Liability

Luis Menendez-Aponte, Daniel J. Santaniello

Defense Verdict

Managing Partner Dan Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict on December 3, 2015 in a traumatic brain injury Trucking liability lawsuit. Plaintiff, a 37 year old male was involved in a catastrophic intersection accident with an 18 wheeler semi-truck operated by the Defendant driver. Plaintiff’s vehicle was completely destroyed due to the severe impact and the Plaintiff had to be extracted from the vehicle by first responders using the jaws-of-life.  After Plaintiff’s release from the hospital, the Plaintiff underwent pain therapy, orthopedic therapy, and began treating with a neurologist Nicholas Suite, MD and neuro-psychologist Alejandro Arias, Psy.D. for alleged traumatic brain injury sustained during the accident. Read More

ATTORNEY

Dismissal with Prejudice

Tampa Senior Associate Joseph Kopacz obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice along with a payment of partial fees through a lapsed Proposal for Settlement (‘PFS”) in the negligence matter styled Adelia Samaha v. Hubbard Construction Company pending in Pinellas County, Florida. Plaintiff’s husband in this case drove Plaintiff’s Lexus into a closed construction zone significantly damaging the undercarriage of the vehicle. From the start, Defendant took a strong no liability position. Read More

Dorsey vs. Hertz Corp.

Dismissal with Prejudice

Shana Nogues, Associate obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Dorsey vs. Hertz Corporation & Rosita N. Simmons. The negligence action arose out of an alleged automobile accident on June 5, 2010, but was filed on January 15, 2015, after the expiration of Florida’s four year Statute of Limitations for negligence actions pursuant to Section 95.11, Florida Statutes. Read More

Luis Menendez-Aponte, Daniel J. Santaniello

Defense Verdict

South Florida Managing Partner Daniel Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte obtained a defense jury verdict after admitting liability on an automobile accident involving a 2 level cervical neck discectomy with fusion in the matter styled Jonathan Pallone vs. Harvey Ruiz-Padilla and Orlando Villanueva on July 2, 2015.  The Defendant admitted negligence but disputed causation and damages.  The Plaintiff demanded $527,828.62 at trial.  The jury returned a defense verdict finding that the Defendant’s negligence was not the legal cause of the Plaintiff’s damages.  Read More

ATTORNEY

Final Declaratory Judgment

Tampa Senior Associate Joseph Kopacz obtained a final declaratory judgment  in the matter styled Ascendant Commercial Insurance vs. Autoplex Used Car Super Center, LLC, Musharraf H. Babu, & Krystal Moore before Judge Patricia Campbell (Pinellas County) on June 30, 2015. Krystal Moore (“Moore”) sustained a brain injury in a two-vehicle accident requiring multiple surgeries and an extensive stay in the hospital. On August 2, 2012, Moore was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her boyfriend Musharraf H. Babu (“Babu”), who was an employee and owner of Autoplex Used Car Super Center, LLC. (“AutoPlex”), when the vehicle was hit near an intersection. Read More

Favorable Verdict

South Florida Managing Partner Daniel Santaniello obtained a favorable jury verdict in a motor vehicle accident case styled Julio Perez Eschevarria vs. Laboratory Corporation Of America, and Charlotte R. Hill on June 19, 2015 in Palm Beach County.  Plaintiff demanded $800,000 prior to the start of the trial. The jury found Plaintiff 60% comparatively negligent and returned a net verdict of $13,962.01. Read More

Motion for Dismissal

Shana Nogues, Associate obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Dorsey vs. Hertz Corporation & Rosita N. Simmons. The negligence action arose out of an alleged automobile accident on June 5, 2010, but was filed on January 15, 2015, after the expiration of Florida’s four year Statute of Limitations for negligence actions pursuant to Section 95.11, Florida Statutes. Read More

Defense Verdict

Paul Jones and Joshua Parks obtained a favorable settlement during trial in an Auto Negligence case in Osceola County in the matter styled Motola v. De Laire on April 7, 2015. The Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant driver and liability was admitted prior to trial. As a result of the subject accident, the Plaintiff claimed injuries to his shoulder, back and legs. Read More

Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Ruling

Tallahassee Junior Partner James Waczewski and Orlando Associate Kate Kmiec prevailed on an appeal in a Motor Vehicle Accident case styled Donna M. Niederhelman v. Mary J. Tucker, at the Fifth District Court of Appeal on April 15, 2014.  Our client, Appellee Tucker was sued following a minor car accident.  Appellee Tucker's fault for the accident was admitted at trial, however Defense disputed that Plaintiff was injured in the accident. Orlando Partner Paul Jones handled the trial and obtained a defense verdict. Read More

Motion to Dismiss

Tampa Senior Associate Joseph Kopacz obtained a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Fraud Upon the Court and entry of judgment against Plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident matter styled Shawn Grey v. Palm Beach Transportation Company, LLC and Michael P. Ryan, on March 21, 2014. Defendant Ryan was operating a Palm Beach Transportation Company yellow cab and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. Read More

Mottram, Tae v. Burgart Enterprises Towing, Inc.

Final Summary Judgment

SUMMARY. Read More

Defense Verdict

Miami Junior Partner Derek H. Lloyd and Managing Partner Daniel J. Santaniello obtained a defense verdict in a Rear-End collision matter styled Lorenzo Wilson v. Evens Jeune in Miami-Dade County on June 7, 2013.  Plaintiff  was stopped at an intersection's stop sign when Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff. Liability was admitted prior to trial, and the only issues at trial revolved around damages. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered multiple disc herniations in cervical spine at C4/5  and C5/6 and lumbar spine at L5/S1,  L3/4,  L4/5.  Plaintiff underwent  lumbar spine injections, one injection was done at each level. Dr. Jeffrey Kugler opined that Plaintiff had  a 2% impairment to the neck, and a 2% impairment to the back, and stated that his injury  was permanent, and causally  related to the accident. Additionally, the Plaintiff  had a lost wage claim of 5 1/2 weeks.  Read More

Villademoros v. Integon National Insurance Company

Defense Verdict

SUMMARY. Read More

Defense Verdict

Paul Jones, Partner and Katherine Kmiec, Esq. of the Orlando office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case styled Amber Hofer v. Kristen Costantino and State Farm in Orange County, March 21, 2012. The case involved an automobile accident near the University of Central Florida, where Plaintiff claimed that her car spun around two and a half times after being hit.  The Plaintiff was 22 years old at the time of the accident and claimed that she permanently injured her neck and lower back in the impact. Read More

Defense Verdict

Paul Jones, Partner and Douglas Petro, Esq., of the Orlando office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a defense verdict in an automobile accident case styled William G. Bruzon v. Antron L. James in Orange County, January 26, 2012. The case involved an automobile accident where the Plaintiff claimed his vehicle was struck on the driver's side while waiting to cross traffic, but the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff turned into his path of travel and caused the accident.  Read More

Defense Verdict

PIP case seeking in excess of $150K in fees, Lee County, Daniel Santaniello and Andrew Chiera, Defense Verdict, August 31, 2011. Read More

Defense Verdict

Motor Vehicle Accident, Hillsborough County, Michael Kestenbaum, Junior Partner and Anthony Petrillo, Tampa Partner, Defense Verdict, May 4, 2011. Read More

Rodriguez v. Rendon

Petrillo, Anthony J., Seitz, Jennifer J.

RESULT

SUMMARY. Read More

Favorable Verdict

SUMMARY. Read More

Julie M. Congress, Howard W.Holden

Defense Verdict

Rivero v. Solivan, Vehicular Liability, Miami-Dade County, Howard W. Holden and Julie M. Congress, Defense Verdict, May 18, 2010. Read More

Eddie Toney v. Jesus O. Curranza Martinez

SUMMARY. Read More

Latasha Lawton vs. Walter Varela

RESULT

SUMMARY. Read More

Defense Verdict

Velazquez v. McCain, Vehicular Liability, Hillsborough County, Anthony J. Petrillo, 2-26-10. Read More

Ramgadoo v. United Auto

Summary Disposition

SUMMARY. Read More

Nevcherlian v. Mercury Insurance

RESULT

SUMMARY. Read More

Holden v. Sony Electronics

Auto & Fleet Liability, Trucking Liability

Santaniello, Daniel J., Bauer, Sherri L.

Settled

$2M demand at trial, case settled for fraction of demand, $30K. Plaintiff trucker assisted in load by our insureds. The equipment loaded dislodged from the dolly, fell over and drove Plaintiff trucker’s head and left shoulder into the sidewall of trailer. Plaintiff required full back fusion surgery. Social Security awarded permanent total disability. Defense showed Defendant insured was not the cause of incident and injuries were pre-existing. Read More

Sherine Foster v. Christine Trappberger

RESULT

SUMMARY. Read More

Julie M. Congress, Howard W. Holden

SUMMARY. Read More

Defense Verdict

SUMMARY. Read More

Summary Judgment

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted in PIP matter on March 27, 2009. Basis for motion was a defective demand letter/failure to comply with a condition precedent. Plaintiff, Florida Total Health Care sent a pre-suit demand to Defendant from "Atlas Recovery Center f/k/a Florida Total Health Care" which purported to include all dates of service the claimant received from the two distinct and separate entities. However, there was no relationship between Atlas and Florida Total Health Care, so the demand letter was defective since it directed United to pay Atlas. Read More

After setoffs and post-trial stipulations, a zero judgment was entered.

Defense admitted liability and causation of temporary damages. Plaintiff was travelling in the right hand lane when cars had stopped or slowed to allow Defendant to complete his left hand turn and dissect the lanes of travel. Plaintiff's vehicle struck Defendant's 3/4 ton pickup truck broadside, spinning it into another vehicle. Both Plaintiffs were ex-military and Plaintiff herself was honorably discharged with the Navy medal of good conduct. Jury found Plaintiff to be 10% at fault. Jury awarded Plaintiff past meds only of $10,733.33 and $0 claimed lost wages. After setoffs and post-trial
stipulations, a zero judgment was entered. Read More

Favorable Verdict

On May 24, 2005, at 3:30 p.m., on Highway 301 and MLK Boulevard, an accident occurred when Plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by Defendant's vehicle. This was a low-impact collision with minimal property damage. The net verdict after the PIP set-off of $ 10,000 was $ 8,095.21. Read More

Defense Verdict

Plaintiff alleged that on February 14, 2003, at approximately 7:00 p.m., while he was driving his vehicle in an easterly direction on Flagler Street in Miami, a police vehicle owned by Defendant being driven in a westerly direction by a law enforcement officer entered Plaintiff's lane and initiated a head-on collision. Defendant denied liability and moved for dismissal for fraud, alleging that Plaintiff failed to disclose his involvement in a previous auto accident and that any damages to Plaintiff were pre-existing. The jury found that there was no negligence on the part of Defendant that was legal cause of damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial was denied. The Court entered final judgment for Defendant and taxed costs in the amount of $ 9,830. Read More

ATTORNEY

Defense Verdict

Plaintiff was a seat belted passenger in a vehicle stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of E. Colonial Drive and Irman Avenue in Orlando when her vehicle was allegedly rear-ended by a vehicle owned by Defendant and operated by a teenage driver. Defendant contended that a phantom vehicle pulled out in the path of the driver operating her vehicle, causing him to veer into the adjacent lane where Plaintiff's vehicle was stopped waiting for the light. The driver of Defendant's vehicle did not have time to stop before colliding with Plaintiff's vehicle. The driver of the phantom vehicle did not stop. There were no other witnesses, other than the teenage driver, that testified to the presence of the phantom vehicle.  Read More

RESULT

Paul S. Jones, Orlando Managing Partner and William J. Peterfriend, Associate received a defense verdict on February 27, 2008 when the jury found no liability and that Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not related to the motor vehicle accident in question. Defendant and a vehicle driven by Non-Party Defendant Kirenia Piloto, were traveling on SW 1st Ave. Defendant testified that the Piloto vehicle was directly behind her. Defendant put on her turn signal to move into the left-hand lane, when the Piloto vehicle grew impatient, sped up and attempted to overtake Defendant’s vehicle in the left-hand lane. The front driver’s side of Defendant’s vehicle collided with the front passenger side of the Piloto vehicle. Plaintiff was seated in the front passenger side of the Piloto vehicle. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the subject accident, she sustained injuries to her neck, right shoulder, back and left knee. Plaintiff admitted to treating with Florida Institute of Pain for neck, right shoulder and back problems stemming from a 2002 Motor Vehicle accident. Her treating physician from the 2002 MVA opined that she had an 8% permanent impairment rating as a result. Plaintiff underwent an MRI for both the 2002 and 2005 accidents. The MRI showed cervical bulges at C5-6.  Read More

Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant.

Paul Jones, Partner and Marc Greenberg, Associate, received a big win February 7, 2008 on a motor vehicle accident matter where the judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict on liability. Plaintiff asked the jury for over $250,000. Plaintiff presented evidence of past lost wages of $60,000 with a continuing wage loss of $20,000 per year. Plaintiff’s past medical expenses were over $35,000. After proceeding through the intersection of Military Trail on Okeechobee Boulevard, rush hour traffic came to a stop. Plaintiff was rear-ended by Defendant and pushed into the car in front of him. Plaintiff had his right hand on the steering wheel at the time of the significant rear impact. Read More

PRACTICE AREA

Julie M. Congress, Daniel J. Santaniello

After the set-off of $10,000.00 resulted in a final judgment in favor of Defendants.

Daniel J. Santaniello, Managing Partner and Julie M. Congress, Associate received good results (October 24, 2007) in a case involving a significant impact rear-end collision wherein Defendant, Juan Ramos claimed a fabre third-party caused the accident. Plaintiff requested a verdict in excess of $50K. The jury found Defendant Ramos only 10% liable, Co-Defendant 50% liable, and Non-Party phantom vehicle 40% liable. The jury awarded Plaintiff only $6,600.00 which after the set-off of $10,000.00 resulted in a final judgment in favor of Defendants. Read More

RESULT

Severe   motor   vehicle  accident   involving  a   T-bone collision. Defendant did not see Plaintiff approaching and turned in front of Plaintiffs vehicle. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs approaching vehicle was not visible due to a small bridge 200 feet from  the  point  of the collision. Plaintiffs vehicle was totaled . Defendant also contended that Plaintiff must have been speeding. Plaintiffs treating physician Dr. Andrew Schmer, D.C., opined that Plaintiff had  an  8%  permanent   impairment   rating.  Plaintiffs treating orthopedic physician , Dr. Pedro Berman , M.D., opined that  Plaintiff  had a 3% permanent  impairment based  upon Plaintiffs  own  "subjective " complaints. Plaintiffs  medical  bills  totaled  approx.  $15K.  Plaintiff requested  $44K for past  and future medical  care  and $69,350 for future  pain and  suffering. Defendant's expert, Dr. Salvador Ramirez, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, testified that Plaintiff had no objective findings to substantiate his subjective complaints and that all problems pre-dated the accident. Dr. Ramirez testified that Plaintiff did not suffer a permanent injury. Read More

Favorable Verdict

Anthony J. Petrillo, Tampa Managing Partner and Jason Montes, Associate received good results when Jury found no permanency on a severe motor vehicle accident awarding Plaintiff past medicals only for a net verdict of $11,260.00 after PIP setoffs.   The case was tried solely on causation and damages. Plaintiff incurred approx. $21K in past medical bills alleging aggravation of a pre-existing neck injury (disc herniations) and a new back injury (activation of symptoms from a dormant/asymptomatic lumbar herniation).   Plaintiff’s treating doctors and Neurologist testified Plaintiff had permanent injury and assigned 23% permanent impairment rating.  Plaintiff asked the jury for past medicals of $21K, future medicals between $60K - $90K and pain & suffering damages between $300K  - $600K. Read More

Daniel J. Santaniello, Peterfriend, William J.

Directed verdict in favor of Defendant

On December 2, 2002, at the intersection of NE 123rd Street and N. Bayshore Drive in North Miami, Defendant allegedly veered off the road and struck Plaintiff, a pedestrian. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant was not paying attention; he dropped something in his vehicle, reached to retrieve it, and his vehicle went off the road into a guard rail subsequently hitting Plaintiff who had pulled his truck over and gotten out of it. Defendant admitted liability, but alleged that the accident was not the legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to Plaintiff. Defendant further alleged that Plaintiff jumped over the railing, causing his injuries. The case was tried on damages only. Plaintiff requested payment for past pain and suffering, past lost wages, future medical expenses, and future pain and suffering. The court entered a directed verdict in favor of Defendant regarding loss of future earning capacity. Plaintiff requested a total award of $ 30,000, including $ 7,000 in past medical expenses and $ 616 in lost wages. Read More

Marc M. Greenberg, Daniel J. Santaniello

Defense Verdict

On October 26, 2004, Defendant Andrew allegedly failed to yield the right-of-way at the intersection of Central Industrial Drive and Prospect Avenue in Riviera Beach. Plaintiff was stopped at a stop sign and proceeded through the intersection when Andrew swerved into the opposite lane of travel, striking Plaintiff. Defendants denied liability, maintaining that Andrew had no stop sign and thus had no obligation to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff.  Read More

Defense Verdict

Daniel Santaniello and William Peterfriend obtained a defense verdict on March 7, 2007 for a vehicular liability case when the Jury found that the Defendant Ms. Naso was not the legal cause of loss, injury or damage to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that on September 29, 2003 the Defendant violated a stop sign on Commerce Parkway. Defendant admitted liability, but alleged that the accident was not the legal cause of loss, injury or damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the subject accident, she sustained permanent injuries to her lower back. Plaintiff also alleged to have suffered injuries to her neck, left arm, left knee and left thigh. Plaintiff maintained that the injury in her back was permanent and left her unable to enjoy life and severely limited her future earning capacity as a Chemist. Plaintiff was first treated in the Emergency Room which documented an injury to the back and left knee, with severe bruising and evidence of trauma.

Read More

Marc M.Greenberg, Daniel J.Santaniello

Defense Verdict

Daniel Santaniello and Marc Greenberg obtained a defense verdict for a vehicular liability case on February 15, 2007 when the Jury found that the Defendant was not the legal cause of loss, injury or damage to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, a thirty (30) year old Accountant, filed suit alleging that on April 30, 2001 the Defendant, Miguel Hidalgo, rear ended her at a moderate rate of speed on Okeechobee Blvd. in West Palm Beach. The Defendant admitted liability, but alleged that the moderate-impact accident was not the legal cause of loss, injury or damage to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff maintained that the injury to her neck was permanent, and left her unable to enjoy life, effecting her ability to engage in physical activities, and maintain relationships with co-workers, friends, and family. Read More

Favorable Verdict

SUMMARY. Read More

PRACTICE AREA

Favorable Verdict

Paul Jones, Partner and William Peterfriend, Esq. received a major win for a vehicular liability in Broward County. The Jury awarded $0 for total amount of damages for reasonable and necessary medical expenses sustained by Plaintiff. The jury answered No to the issue of permanency. The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that on January 25, 2004, Defendant violated a red light signal when exiting the Florida Turnpike onto Red Road. Defendant contended at trial Plaintiff violated the red light. Defendant further contended that Plaintiff was driving with alcohol on his breath after partying on South Beach the night prior to the accident. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the subject accident, he sustained permanent scarring and permanent injuries to his neck. Plaintiff’s treating physician Dr. Alex Cintron, D.C., testified that Plaintiff had a 5% impairment rating. Defendant’s expert, Dr. Christopher Troiano testified that Plaintiff showed no signs of objective injury.  Read More

Favorable Verdict

Defense admitted liability, the case was tried solely on the issues of causation and damages. Plaintiff alleged that she was rear-ended from an impact which totaled the Defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff sustained left shoulder sprain/strain, neck sprain strain, low back with possible annular tear and bulges at L4-L5 and L5- S1 for which a dicogram and nucleoplasty surgery had been recommended. The jury determined that the negligence of the Defendant was the legal cause of injury, loss or damage to the Plaintiff and that Jose Rivera was not entitled to any recovery for the filial consortium claim or for the loss of services for his daughter. The verdict awarded Plaintiffs a net of $6K. The Plaintiff asked the jury for her medical bills ($22K) and future medical expenses, future loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering in the past and future, and loss of support and services for the father. The jury awarded the Plaintiff less than her medical bills (i.e., only $16K). The jury also determined that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any future medical bills, had not sustained a permanent injury. The Jury awarded the Defendant the $10,000 setoff for the payable PIP benefits at trial. Read More

Favorable Verdict

DUI / Punitive Damages/ $280,000 sought- $5,000 Jury Verdict. Plaintiff alleged that on August 17, 2004, she was violently struck by the Defendant who was traveling under the influence of alcohol with a level of .26, three times the legal limit. Defendant was convicted of DUI and the Court estopped the Defendant from denying liability or intoxication and the case went to the jury on causation, damages and punitive damages. Plaintiff put on two experts; a toxicologist who put our client at .26 at the moment of impact. Property damage was severe. Plaintiff also put on Dr. Brad Kern, D.C. who gave Plaintiff a 7-8% permanent impairment for injuries to her neck and shoulder. The defense contended that Plaintiff did not realize she was so intoxicated, admitted liability and fought the case on permanency and punitives. Read More

Aguilar v. Ortiz and Alvarado

RESULT

SUMMARY. Read More

ATTORNEY

Favorable Verdict

Paul Jones, Partner  and Joseph Scarpa, Esq. received a defense verdict on June 30, 2006 for a personal injury claim. On July 28, 2003, the Plaintiff was hit by a car that failed to stop at an intersection. The vehicle then fled the scene. A witness to the accident obtained the license plate number of the fleeing vehicle. The officer responding to the accident traced the fleeing vehicle’s license plate to the Defendant’s residence. The Defendant argued her vehicle was not involved in the accident with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Webster, a pain management specialist, testified at trial that the Plaintiff suffered a permanent injury to his cervical and lumbar spine as a result of the accident. The Defendant’s expert, Dr. Lotman, an orthopedic surgeon, found that the Plaintiff suffered a cervical sprain as a result of the accident and suspected the Plaintiff may have also suffered a compression fracture in his cervical spine at C-6. The Plaintiff incurred $5,915.00 in medical expenses by the time of trial. The Plaintiff’s expert pain management specialist testified at trial that the Plaintiff would need $4,000-$5,000 in future treatment for the rest of his life, to include trigger point injections for the control of pain. The jury found that it was the Defendant's vehicle that caused the accident, but was convinced by the defense that the Plaintiff was not injured in the accident. Read More

Favorable Verdict

Daniel J. Santaniello and Nicholas H. DeCapua won a huge verdict wherein liability was admitted and the defense team challenged the need for the neck surgery. The jury agreed, awarding $0 of the $30,000 cervical surgery and only $5,000 in pain and suffering in the future. The case involved a Motor Vehicle accident in Miami-Dade County where Defendant Pena was cited for the accident. Defendant Pena was operating a vehicle owned by Defendant Hernandez. Plaintiff Paz argued at trial that as he proceeded through an intersection, having the right of way, Defendant Pena ran a stop sign and struck his vehicle on the driver’s side.Read More

RESULT

Daniel Santaniello, Managing Partner received a defense verdict in Miami-Dade County on April 18, 2006 for a Motor Vehicle Accident. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant ran a stop sign. The Jury found liability. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the subject accident, Maudeva Lee Robinson sustained permanent injuries to her right arm and shoulder, which is her dominant hand. The Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr. Elliot Lang, treated Plaintiff for possible rotator cuff and permanent supraspinatus tendinosis to the shoulder, as well as neck and back injuries. Plaintiff’s chiropractor, Dr. Fernandez, opined that Plaintiff did sustain a permanent injury to the shoulder, neck and back and gave the Plaintiff a 6% permanency rating to the body as a whole. Dr. Fernandez opined that Plaintiff’s positive MRI revealed permanent damage to the shoulder. Plaintiff’s medical bills totaled $17,463. Plaintiff also claimed lost wages of approximately $8,000. Plaintiff claimed future medical care and pain and suffering, all totaling over $100,000. The jury awarded only approximately $6,000 in past medical bills resulting in a "zero" verdict and found that the Plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury. As a result, Defendant is entitled to tax costs. Read More

Final Judgment

Daniel Santaniello, Managing Partner received a Final Judgment in favor of Defendants on February 14, 2006 in Miami-Dade County. Plaintiff alleged that she was proceeding west though the green light at the Intersection of Bird Road and 67th Avenue, at which time she was struck by Defendant, Carlos Rodriguez. Plaintiff claimed that she sustained neck, back and shoulder injuries (i.e., Wedge Fracture at mid back; Disc Space Narrowing at LS-S1; Reversed Spondylolisthesis of L4-5, L5-S1; Right Shoulder Thecal Sprain). Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant was the sole cause of the accident through his negligence by entering the subject intersection against a red light for his direction of travel. Rodriguez and a non-party witness called by Defendant’s Counsel both testified that Rodriguez had a green light and that Manas ignored the red signal, thus causing the accident. The Jury found in favor of Defendants on liability that the Defendant was not negligent in causing the subject accident. Read More

Defense Verdict

Daniel J. Santaniello, Partner received a defense verdict for a motor vehicle accident which occurred on June 17, 2004. Plaintiff alleged she was proceeding west though the green light at the Intersection of Northwest 6th Street and Northwest 2nd Avenue, at which time she was struck by Defendant, Earnest Daniels, who was ticketed for the accident. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant was the sole cause of the accident through his negligence by entering the subject intersection against a red light for his direction of travel. Plaintiff claimed she was a 22 year old female with no prior back or neck complaints, when she was struck violently and taken to the hospital. She was treated for 2 years and had a positive MRI for 2 level bulging disks. Read More

Defense Verdict

Daniel J. Santaniello, Partner and Robin Levine, Partner received a Defense Verdict in Miami-Dade County. Plaintiff alleged that decedent Richard Napper, a pedestrian was crossing the street when he was negligently struck by the Laboratory Corporation vehicle driven by their employee, Miguel Hernandez. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant Hernandez carelessly failed to yield to Richard Napper and had sufficient time to avoid colliding with him. Defendants argued that Richard Napper was the sole cause of the accident because he entered the intersection while intoxicated, against the light and 10 feet outside of a designated crosswalk. Plaintiff first filed the case as a Wrongful Death when Mr. Napper died weeks later from complications of the ankle, claiming an emboli. Defendant aggressively fought the death claim, claiming Plaintiff had prior similar conditions causing Plaintiff to
drop it before trial and proceed solely on a survivor claim for the accident. Plaintiff claimed compensation for injuries to his head, neck, back and a comminuted, displaced left ankle fracture and dislocation which required 3 surgeries leading up to his death. Plaintiff asked the jury for approximately $70,000 in past medicals and $500,000 in pain and suffering. Read More

Favorable Verdict

On June 12, 2002, at approximately 2:48 p.m., minor Plaintiff Natividad alleged that she was stopped at a red light on N.E. 8th Street in Homestead when Defendant's vehicle rear-ended her vehicle. The jury determined that Defendant's negligence was the legal cause of injury, loss, or damage to Plaintiff. They also determined that Jose Rivera was not entitled to any recovery for the filial consortium claim or for the loss of his daughter's services. The net verdict awarded to minor Plaintiff was $ 6,000. Minor Plaintiff asked the jury for her medical bills of $22,000, future medical expenses, future loss of earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering, and loss of support and services for her father; nevertheless the jury awarded minor Plaintiff less than her medical bills ($ 16,000). The jury also determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to any future medical bills and that she did not sustain a permanent injury. The jury was also asked to make a determination as to whether Defendant was entitled to a $ 10,000 set-off for the payable PIP benefits and awarded Defendant the $ 10,000 set-off at trial.  Read More

Court entered Judgment for Defendants

On April 14, 2002, at approximately 10:03 a.m., Plaintiff was driving north on N.W. 66th Avenue in Margate when his vehicle was struck in the front right driver's side by Defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had negligently failed to stop, or even slow down, at a four-way stop sign causing the impact with Plaintiff's vehicle, which sustained nearly $ 12,000 in property damage. Defendants admitted liability and the case was tried solely on the issues of causation and damages.  Plaintiff asked the jury for approximately $ 27,000. Although the jury returned a verdict awarding Plaintiff less than his medical expenses, the court actually entered judgment for Defendants because the PIP set-off resulted in a net verdict of $ 0 for Plaintiff. Because of a previously filed confidential proposal for settlement, Defendant is entitled to tax costs and attorney's fees. Plaintiff demanded $ 12,000.  Read More

Defense Verdict

On August 13, 2001, Plaintiff was traveling east on NW 135th Street in Miami and was stopped at a red light. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant struck her vehicle from behind causing a severe impact and approximately $ 2,500 in property damage. Plaintiff contended that, as a result of the accident, she sustained multiple cervical and lumbar herniations and a permanent injury. Defendant did not dispute liability for the accident. Plaintiff asked the jury for $ 57,048.86. Defendant is entitled to attorney's fees and costs based upon her Proposal for Settlement. Although Defendant admitted liability, the jury determined that the accident was not the legal cause of loss, injury, or damage to Plaintiff and answered "no" to question one on the verdict form. Read More

On February 20, 2002, Plaintiff alleged that she was traveling east on Pines Boulevard in Pembroke Pines when she was rear-ended by Defendant's vehicle. This case was tried on liability and damages.   The court entered a directed verdict of liability against Defendant upon Plaintiff's Motion for a Directed Verdict. Because the parties had stipulated that Defendant was entitled to a $ 10,000 PIP set-off, the net verdict was "0." Defendant will be entitled to tax costs and attorney's fees pursuant to final judgment that will be entered in Defendant's favor. Read More