Macdonald & Cody 2024 Annual Bowling Event
Macdonald & Cody, LLP recently brought employees and their families together for our annual bowling event. It was a great opportunity to connect with colleagues from different offices, celebrate our achievements, and enjoy some friendly competition.
Proud Sponsor of the 2024 SCGA Foundation Cup
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The SCGA Junior Golf Foundation and their upcoming event on August 5th, the 2024 SCGA Foundation Cup.
Proud Sponsor of the Childhelp Rich Saul Memorial Golf Classic 2024
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, Childhelp and their upcoming event on April 29th, the Rich Saul Memorial Golf Classic 2024.
Proud Sponsor of the 7th Annual CRB Golf Tournament
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The Alabaster Jar Project and the upcoming event on April 19th, the 7th Annual CRB Golf Tournament.
LA Jury Returns a Unanimous Defense Verdict Within 18 Minutes on a Disputed Liability Case Involving Surgery
On February 21, 2024, Marvin Velastegui obtained a defense verdict where an LA jury found no negligence on the part of the defendant.
This case involved disputed liability as it was two vehicles approaching one another in a narrow residential neighborhood. The plaintiff and defendant had two different versions of how the incident occurred and the photographs depicted a minor impact. The plaintiff claimed about $400,000 in past medical lien treatment that included chiropractic care, acupuncture, multiple low back injections, an SI joint fusion surgery, and physical therapy. The plaintiff also claimed about $70,000 in past wage loss and a future neck surgery recommendation in the amount of $250,000. In closing, the plaintiff’s attorney asked for a total of $1.7 million. The jury deliberated for 18 minutes and came back with a unanimous decision that the defendant was not negligent.
Read MoreProud Sponsor of the 17th Annual OC ABOTA Golf Classic
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The American Board of Trial Advocates, Orange County Chapter and the upcoming event on May 20th, the 17th Annual OC ABOTA Golf Classic.
Jury Awards Only 0.63% of Plaintiff’s Ask in a Left-Turn Accident, Conceding Liability
On February 7, 2024, Michael J. Cody and Danielle M. Boyd secured a successful result at trial in Orange County regarding a left-turn accident with conceding liability. The clients included an Orange County dealership and its employee, a courtesy shuttle driver, acting in the course and scope of employment during the accident. Prior to trial, Defendant made a 998 offer for $450,000 while Plaintiff made a 998 offer for $650,000.
Per testimony, the accident occurred near an active school zone, with a posted 25-mile-per-hour speed limit. According to police body camera footage of the accident, there were schoolchildren in the crosswalk. Plaintiff admitted to driving at 40 miles per hour and testified that her foot was not on the brake at the time of impact. Her airbags did not deploy.
Defendant shuttle driver testified that he saw Plaintiff’s vehicle approaching but stated that there was enough space to execute a left turn, and that he did not ignore the rules of the road. As Defendant began his left turn, Defendant and Plaintiff’s vehicles contacted, with the impact occurring at the front right bumper of Plaintiff’s vehicle. There was conflicting testimony presented by a nonparty involved in the accident as to whether the nonparty had an impact with the shuttle driver’s vehicle first or with Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Following the incident, Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven from the scene of the accident by her boyfriend. Plaintiff was then transported by ambulance to a local hospital where she was discharged the same day.
Defense accident reconstruction/biomechanical expert agreed with Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert that the delta-v of the impact was 7-9 mph. He also testified as to the crash duration time and the g-force to Plaintiff’s body. He testified that the impact Plaintiff felt upon impact would cause muscle sprain/strain, but nothing traumatic and nothing to cause a disc injury. Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert did not calculate the crash duration time or the force to Plaintiff’s body.
In the seven months following the incident, Plaintiff attended seven chiropractor appointments, received one injection to the cervical spine and ultimately underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at two levels. Plaintiff’s spine surgeon described the surgery that Plaintiff underwent for the jury. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon relied on one image from the MRI of the cervical spine to explain why the surgery was warranted. He was unable to tell the jury whether Plaintiff had pre-existing bulges and protrusions or if they were caused by the accident.
Defense orthopedic surgeon testified that in reviewing Plaintiff’s imaging, the objective evidence in medical records, and the independent medical examination, Plaintiff did not have structural damage to her spine; she had pre-existing degenerative bulges. There was no finding in the post-accident MRIs of traumatic herniation or significant narrowing around the nerves. This was confirmed by the emergency room doctor and the emergency room radiologist as Plaintiff had a normal neural examination and normal imaging for her cervical spine – i.e. no disc injury. Defense neuroradiologist further explained the post-accident MRI films and the day of accident CT scan in depth. He testified that there was no nerve impingement in the cervical spine at the levels Plaintiff’s spine surgeon was claiming were at issue.
Defense orthopedic surgeon largely testified that Plaintiff’s cervical spine surgery was unwarranted as there was no nerve to decompress. Defense orthopedic surgeon confirmed that the arm and hand symptoms Plaintiff was experiencing were not due to her neck because there was no nerve compression. He also testified about what would be reasonable care and the reasonable costs of such care. Following treatment in 2021, Plaintiff did not require further treatment. Defense orthopedic surgeon testified that Plaintiff did not undergo sufficient conservative treatment before resorting to interventional measures.
Plaintiff’s boyfriend and sister-in-law testified to her pre and post-accident status, stating that the accident affected Plaintiff’s ability to go on outings with her boyfriend’s daughter. Plaintiff also presented testimony of being unable to walk her dog and noted that she still had pain after her cervical spine surgery.
In closing arguments, Plaintiff asked for over $11,000,000. Plaintiff’s ask consisted of over $2,900,000 in past noneconomic damages and $8,100,000 in future noneconomic damages. Further, Plaintiff requested $152,100 in past medical specials. Defense gave different options to the jury for past medical expenses and told the jury there were no future noneconomic damages to award and no future medical expenses to award.
Result: The jury returned a verdict: $20,000 in past medical expenses, no future medical expenses, $50,000 in past noneconomic damages, and no future noneconomic damages. The jury found Plaintiff negligent and that her negligence caused her injuries. The jury apportioned 30% fault on Plaintiff, and the remainder on Defendant, resulting in a jury award of $49,000. Defendant was entitled to costs.
Read MoreMacdonald & Cody Celebrates the Holidays
Macdonald & Cody LLP recently hosted its annual holiday party bringing together team members from offices around Southern California. We are grateful for our employees and wish everyone a wonderful holiday season.
Downtown LA Jury Awards Only $7,059 with 90% Fault on Plaintiff in a Motor Vehicle Accident with $300,000 in Medical Specials
On September 27, 2023, Scott Macdonald and Danielle Boyd secured a favorable verdict in downtown Los Angeles. The subject accident occurred in a residential street in Los Angeles. Defendant was peaking out of a residential driveway and started to make a left turn. Plaintiff was driving northbound on the residential street. Plaintiff was going over the speed limit for a residential street, honked twice when he saw Defendant, and had an impact with Defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff did not brake or try to avoid an accident. The point of impact on Plaintiff’s vehicle was Plaintiff’s front right fender. At the scene of the accident, Plaintiff alleged that he injured his shoulder as well as his neck and cervical spine.
During expert discovery, Plaintiff counsel failed to produce their experts for expert depositions. Ms. Boyd brought a motion in limine to exclude all of Plaintiff’s experts at the time of trial which was granted. She also brought a successful motion in limine to exclude a treating physician, who was never disclosed in discovery that did a cervical spine fusion on Plaintiff the week before trial. Plaintiff counsel also attempted to call an expert as a treating physician, following defense motion and argument, the bait-and-switch doctor was excluded from testifying at trial.
Defendant disputed liability, causation, and damages. Defendant disputed the injury was anything more than a sprain/strain.
Defendant made a CCP 998 offer in the amount of $300,000 prior to trial. Plaintiff made a CCP 998 offer for $985,000 after Defendant’s offer.
At trial, Plaintiff claimed injuries to his shoulder, lumbar spine, and cervical spine. Plaintiff counsel called several treating physicians for Plaintiff, including a chiropractor, orthopedic surgeon who testified about Plaintiff’s shoulder surgery, another doctor who testified about giving dextrose injections, spine surgeon who testified about injections, EMG doctor, and Plaintiff’s brother. The treating physicians all claimed that Plaintiff’s injuries were caused the accident. Plaintiff had a recommendation for ACDF surgery which was part of Plaintiff’s neurosurgeon visit, occurring multiple years before trial.
During Plaintiff’s cross examination, Plaintiff was impeached multiple times with his inconsistent statements about the accident to the investigating officers, the hospital, and at his deposition.
Defense counsel called the investigating police offer, Defendant, an accident reconstruction/ biomechanical expert, the person most knowledgeable at Plaintiff’s employment in maintenance at a local mall, a neurosurgeon, and an orthopedic surgeon.
The defense accident reconstruction expert testified that based on his review of all file materials, the Delta V was approximately 5-7, which is a minor impact and no mechanism for injury to the lumbar spine or other part of his spine. The impact forces would have been forward and to the right, and there was no way for Plaintiff’s right shoulder to come into contact with the steering wheel. There was no documented evidence that Plaintiff injured his shoulder in the ambulance or hospital records. At most, Plaintiff could have had a minor injury to soft tissue that would resolve in 1-2 weeks with conservative treatment.
The defense neurosurgeon testimony focused on the fact that Plaintiff, at most, would have had a sprain/strain that would have resolved following a few weeks of physical therapy (4-6 weeks), with physical therapy being $100-250 per session. The neurosurgeon went over the MRI films with the jury. He kept reiterating the fact that Plaintiff went to chiropractor not physical therapy and what Plaintiff needed was physical therapy. He also highlighted the EMG was just wrong – the C4 does not control motor skills, and does not go through the trapezius like Plaintiff’s orthopedic doctor said or the deltoid like Plaintiff’s neurosurgeon said. The neurosurgeon testified to the reasonable cost of any treatment for sprain/strain. He explained that there was no change in neurologic examination at the beginning of plaintiff’s visits to providers. The neurosurgeon also testified that Plaintiff had degenerative conditions in his spine.
The orthopedic surgeon gave testimony that Plaintiff had degenerative conditions in the right shoulder, and at most, he suffered a minor sprain/strain, which would require physical therapy for approximately 3 months. He also testified that there was no traumatic event to cause Plaintiff’s shoulder injury that Plaintiff attributed to the accident. He also provided the reasonable cost for a shoulder surgery.
It came out at trial that Plaintiff still worked, played pinball, and poplocked danced. Plaintiff’s brother’s testimony did not assist Plaintiff’s change to his lifestyle. Plaintiff counsel opened the door to Plaintiff’s sobriety, which the jury learned was not true as Plaintiff had instances after the accident where he was still enjoying a non-sober lifestyle.
During the defense case, Plaintiff counsel attempted to present a witness to testify of the EDR of Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant was successful in getting the witness, who was never disclosed In discovery, from appearing at trial.
Plaintiff counsel at closing asked for $3,298,591,18 million, $3 million of which was noneconomic damages, and $298,591.18 was economic damages.
Result: After deliberating for less than an hour and a half, the jury returned the following verdict: $70,059.00 in past medical expenses, no future medical specials, no noneconomic damages, apportionment of fault was 90% on Plaintiff, and 10% on Defendant, resulting in a jury award of $7,059.00. Defendant was entitled to costs.
Read MorePlaintiff Fails to Obtain Arbitration Award in Excess of Defense Offer
On March 24, 2023, Rory Leos obtained a successful binding arbitration award in an admitted liability auto accident case. The plaintiff was a 59-year-old woman who claimed a right should injury which she alleged caused a severe right shoulder pain which was a daily constant. The accident occurred on the freeway, and it was alleged defendant did not stop after hitting plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiff testified that she felt pain in her neck and shoulder immediately following the accident, as well as bruising to the chest. Plaintiff consulted with an orthopedic surgeon for right shoulder pain. Upon examination, plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical strain and right shoulder strain, and it was recommended she have a cortisone injection in her right shoulder. Plaintiff had two cortisone injections to the right shoulder. Plaintiff also completed 24 physical therapy sessions. An MRI of plaintiff’s right shoulder revealed degenerative changes (wear and tear) consistent with plaintiff’s age. The total charges for plaintiff’s medical care were $23,610.00. All of plaintiff’s medical treatment was provided on a lien basis.
At arbitration, plaintiff argued that her pain was constant and that it interfered with her sleep and her participation in various activities. Plaintiff claimed she could not raise her arm above her head.
Mr. Leos argued on behalf of the insurance carrier that plaintiff did not sustain a significant right shoulder injury as a result of the accident, other than soft tissue strains. The defendant called a board certified orthopedic doctor as his expert. The doctor opined that plaintiff’s soft tissue injuries should have resolved within 3 months. It also was argued that any ongoing pain claimed by plaintiff is the result of plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative changes in the right shoulder and not caused by any trauma from the accident.
Plaintiff made a policy limits demand of $300,000. on December 11,2020, prior to filing suit. During the pendency of the lawsuit, defendant served a 998 Offer to Compromise for $90,000. Defendant increased his offer to $50,000 to settle prior to arbitration. Plaintiff refused.
Prior to arbitration, the parties agreed to a “high / low” of $30,000 to $300,000. After one day of arbitration, plaintiff asked for an award of $145,000. Defendant asked for an award of $30,000. The arbitrator awarded plaintiff $50,000, only slightly more than the “low” of $30,000, and the same amount defendant had offered prior to arbitration.
Read More