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

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.

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.

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

Tampa Senior Partner Jeffrey Benson, Esq., obtained summary judgment in Citrus County in matter styled Garcia v. Pittman.  Plaintiff claimed he was crushed by a falling tree branch on Defendant’s property and that defendant destroyed the evidence of the tort afterwards by cleaning up her yard.  

After extensive discovery and briefing, the court denied Plaintiff’s spoliation claim going through a three prong analysis. First, Plaintiff had not proven that actual evidence of a tort ever existed, or, if it did exist that the specific tree branch that hit Plaintiff could have ever been identified.  Second, the court ruled Defendant did not have a duty to preserve the tree debris. The court adopted our argument that Citrus County code required Defendant to clean up her yard. Third, the court found no viable theory of liability against Defendant.  Plaintiff did NOT show that cleaning up the accident site deprived him of the ability to prove his case (because he never had a case).  It was also noted that there is no indication Defendant acted in bad faith, as she called her insurer to investigate the scene before she hired a professional tree company to remove the branches.

The court found “there is not even a mere scintilla of evidence to suggest [Defendant] failed to maintain the trees…” and that “absent sanctions for spoliation, Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to establish the accident occurred due to [Defendant’s] failure to use reasonable care in maintaining her property.”  Further, Defendant had no duty to warn because the dangerous condition was known to Plaintiff and was open and obvious to him.  The trial court’s ruling was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Read More.

Tampa Senior Partner Jeffrey Benson, Esq., was granted summary judgment  in trip and fall matter styled Ruiz v. JMJ Doral Oaks Et Al. Pro Se Plaintiff sued claiming she sustained a traumatic brain injury after tripping and falling down Defendant’s allegedly dark stairs.  After extensive discovery, the court granted summary judgement holding that any allegations of a dangerous condition on the stairs was open and obvious. Read More. 

Stuart Partner Nora Bailey, Esq., recently received a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in a wrongful death/trucking matter styled Gonzalez, Eloisa as Personal Representative of the E/O Torres v. S&M Services. The case arises from a trucking accident in Okeechobee, where an 18 year-old driver was unfortunately killed after striking the side of our insured tractor-trailer in an intersection. Plaintiff brought claims for his surviving parents, which is permitted under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, but also pleaded claims for lost support and services for three (3) surviving siblings, including two minors. Ms. Bailey moved for summary judgment on the siblings’ claims, arguing that Plaintiff had provided no evidence to substantiate their lost support and services claims under section 768.18. After a hearing on the Motion, before a ruling, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all three (3) siblings’ claims with prejudice. This comes after Ms. Bailey was previously successful in the same case in securing a order dismissing the siblings’ mental anguish claims, which are not permitted under section 768.21. Read More

$1.7 M Sought | Morgan and Morgan | Jury Returned a complete Defense Verdict | Slip and Fall | Orange County.

On January 19, 2024, Managing Partner Tony Petrillo and Senior Partner Jeff Benson obtained a complete defense verdict in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiff 52 Year Old Landscaper v. Defendant Retail Store in Orange County, Florida.  The Plaintiff claimed he slipped and fell as he was walking out of the Defendant's store due to accumulated water from an employee’s unauthorized use of a watering hose.  The Plaintiff subsequently had a two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C3-4 and C4-5. His orthopedic surgeon testified he would need another neck surgery due to adjacent level disc disease that would cost $75,000.00 and a separate low back surgery in the future that would cost $100,000.00.  Plaintiff started trial claiming over $400,000.00 in past medical bills but ended trial conceding to $165,000.00 in past medical bills due to the defense proving that was the true reasonable and necessary value. The Defendant avoided any spoliation jury instruction because Plaintiff failed to prove that a duty to preserve surveillance video existed, even though a generic preservation letter was sent 18 days after the alleged incident.  During closing arguments Plaintiff demanded $1.7 million.  The jury returned a verdict finding no negligence. Read More.

This case arose out of a property insurance claim, in which the Plaintiff claimed that the roof of his property was damaged as a result of a windstorm that occurred on either July 19, 2021, February 7, 2020, or July 7, 2021. Plaintiff initially reported the claim with a  date of loss of July 19, 2021. After retaining a public adjuster (PA), the PA changed the date of loss to February 7, 2020. Then, during his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he believed the correct date of loss was July 7, 2021. The claim had been denied because there was no storm created damage to the roof and no peril created opening which allowed water to enter the interior of the property.  The court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part as to there being no peril created opening, but found a question of fact as to whether there was storm damage to the roof. The parties proceeded to trial on December 8, 2023. 

Plaintiff’s last demand before trial was for $90,000 global.   On the morning of the first day of trial, the parties settled for nominal amount, as the jury was in the process of being convened from the jury assembly room.  The case had been in litigation for 21 months at the time of trial/settlement and had been through considerable discovery, including depositions of both parties and their respective experts.