2019

Multiple Epidural Injections in a Low-Impact Case

On December 3, 2019, an Orange County Jury awarded a total of $2,500 for three plaintiffs with combined Medical Bills of over $225,000.  Scott Macdonald of Macdonald & Cody, LLP tried the case after plaintiff refused to negotiate off of the $100,000 policy limit demands for both adult plaintiffs and offered no serious discussions regarding the minor plaintiff.  The adult plaintiffs were offered $35,000 and $30,000 by way of C.C.P. Section 998 offers.  The minor plaintiff was offered $15,000 by way of C.C.P. Section 998.  

The accident occurred when defendant rear-ended plaintiffs’ vehicle.  Plaintiffs’ vehicle was pushed into a third vehicle.  The occupants of the lead vehicle claimed injury and were those cases were reasonably resolved.  Plaintiffs all took ambulance rides to the hospital.  They called their lawyer and were immediately referred to chiropractic treatment.  All three plaintiffs were given MRI exams of all spinal levels.  The two adult plaintiffs were referred to pain management doctors.  Both plaintiffs had a series of three cervical epidurals given at two-week intervals, followed by three lumbar spine epidurals given at two-week intervals.  Both plaintiffs had their epidurals on the same days.  Both plaintiffs claimed no relief from any of the treatment obtained.  The medical specials for the two adult plaintiffs were $106,000 and $107,000.   

The defense presented the testimony of a biomechanical engineer who opined that the accident in question was insufficient to produce forces which would cause anything other than minor symptoms which would be expected to resolve within hours.  The defense also presented the testimony of a neuroradiologist who testified that the injections administered were not indicated and gave no medical benefit to plaintiffs.  Finally, the defense orthopedist told the jury that based upon his examination of plaintiffs and his review of the records that no care and treatment beyond the initial emergency room visit was reasonable or necessary.  Plaintiffs own orthopedic expert admitted on cross-examination that 80 to 90% of the individuals involved in this collision would resolve without any care or treatment.  

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for New Trial which was denied.

Mock Jury Aids in Settlement During Trial

On November 12, 2019, Scott Macdonald and Debra Braasch of Macdonald & Cody, LLP obtained a favorable settlement after four days of trial.  This wrongful death case was settled for just above the final pre-trial offer and within authority.  The settlement amount was less than half of the eight figure demand that plaintiff counsel said he would never accept to resolve the matter once policy limits had been demanded and said offer allowed to lapse.  

The case involved the death of a Cal Trans worker.  The litigation was highly emotional and the incident was the subject of publicity.  The facts of the tragic incident were such that it was necessary to litigate the issue of liability as there was substantial comparative fault on the part of the decedent.  The family of the decedent were a loving and tight-knit group, and the decedent was a caring and devoted husband and father.  To prepare for the trial of the matter, the team from Macdonald & Cody, LLP employed the services of a company that set up a Mock Jury.  Theories and defenses were well-tested in order to properly prepare the case for trial.  The Mock Jury confirmed that the defense team’s determination of the case value was correct and that trial would be necessary.

At trial, plaintiff’s case began to substantially weaken.  While the damages side of the case would always be sound, plaintiffs began to appreciate the real possibility that a significant finding of fault on the part of the decedent was likely.  Therefore, on a Friday and after four days of trial negotiations began again in earnest.  The defense team, led by Macdonald and Braasch, held to the area of the pre-trial offer and resolved the matter to the extreme pleasure of their clients and principal.

Jury Sends Plaintiff a Message

On October 29, 2019, the jury sent a strong message to plaintiff and her attorney that personal responsibility is a two-way street.  Plaintiff and defendant engaged in conduct on a freeway wherein both drove aggressively toward each other.  Plaintiff lost control of her vehicle and rolled after impacting the shoulder.  Plaintiff was not seriously injured.  Defendant, an off-duty police officer was prosecuted by the District Attorney and chose to enter a no contest plea to a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving.  The incident and plea had significant professional, financial and personal consequences to defendant and defendant’s family.  

Plaintiff aggressively pursued defendant in the Civil action.  Plaintiff underwent attorney-referred chiropractic treatment and sought care from Kaiser for her claimed injuries.  She claimed significant psychological trauma from the incident.  She claimed that the incident ruined her life.  Plaintiff refused a policy limits offer and offer of contribution of defendant.  Plaintiff demanded $180,000 by way of a Code of Civil Procedure, Section 998. 

The matter was tried to jury in San Bernardino by Scott Macdonald, of Macdonald & Cody, LLP. The defense, led by Macdonald, admitted liability but argued that plaintiff was equally responsible for the incident.  Plaintiff denied any responsibility for the incident and her actions precipitating the loss of control.  Plaintiff presented eye witnesses to the accident as well as the investigating Highway Patrol officer.  Defendant credibly testified and admitted his responsibility for the incident and that while he had disengaged and was attempting to get away when plaintiff lost control, he admitted that he should have disengaged earlier and avoided the incident all together.  

Plaintiff’s husband testified that his wife’s life was completely changed.  He testified that she could not get out of bed for a month.  He testified that the couple’s marriage was significantly affected by the loss and plaintiff’s injuries.  He was significantly impeached by identical claims made by him a couple of years before this incident where plaintiff had run over an open manhole cover and claimed injuries that ruined her life and marriage.  She had sued the power company and claimed significant injury.  Plaintiff’s husband was significantly impeached when shown Facebook photos showing plaintiff out socializing with friends within a week of the accident.   Plaintiff was similarly impeached by extensive use of Social Media postings.  The jury was shown that the claims of continuing injury and psychological trauma was greatly exaggerated if not totally false.  Defense used sub rosa footage showing that plaintiff’s claims of continuing injury were exaggerated.  

The defense, led by Macdonald, asked the jury to award fault equally to both plaintiff and defendant (“50/50”).  The jury returned a verdict finding plaintiff 60% responsible.  Plaintiff asked the jury to award over a million dollars.  The jury awarded plaintiff $3,325 in medical bills and no general damages.   The defendant’s share of that amount was $1,330.  Plaintiff brought a Motion for New Trial.  The Court ordered a $1,000 additur as no general damages had been awarded by the jury.  Macdonald and team accepted the additur and are pursuing costs.

Million Dollar Demand for Dog Bite

On August 22, 2019 Scott Macdonald, of Macdonald & Cody, LLP won a verdict of $67,232.77 from an Orange County jury for a dog bite incident.  Liability was admitted.  Plaintiff claimed that she sustained a dog bite which resulted in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).  The parties stipulated to over $15,000 in medical specials which were related to the incident.  The issue for the jury to decide was the true nature of the injury and any past and future pain and suffering.   

The plaintiff claimed that the accident resulted in a CRPS condition.  She presented the testimony of a UCLA physician who specializes in the condition.  The defense countered with experts as well.  Plaintiff claimed that she had the condition and would suffer its effects for life.  The defense presented evidence of a pre-existing problem with plaintiff’s ulnar nerve which was lit up by the dog bite.  The defense hand expert testified that with care and treatment the symptoms would be expected to resolve within six months to a year at the outside.  The defense presented evidence that plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages by failing to undergo the care and treatment recommended to her by her treating physicians at Kaiser.  The defense argued that plaintiff was seeking evaluations by attorney-referred specialists to build her case rather than focusing on the issues which were truly caused by the accident.  

The defense offered $100,000 by Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 before the trial.  Plaintiff’s last demand as $300,000.  Plaintiff refused to negotiate below this number.  Plaintiff asked the jury to award over a $1.1 million dollars.  The jury awarded the stipulated medical expenses plus $22,000 in past pain and suffering and $30,000 future pain and suffering.

Defense Verdict in Pedestrian versus Automobile Case

June 2019: Nadin S. Said of Macdonald & Cody, LLP secured a defense verdict in Downtown Los Angeles. The accident occurred in front of Westfield Fashion Square. The plaintiff was a 15-year-old minor who crossed the street and alleged defendant ran over Plaintiff’s foot with Defendant’s car. Defendant did not hire an expert and called the treating emergency room doctor who treated Plaintiff and diagnosed Plaintiff with crush foot injury.

Plaintiff retained an orthopedic expert who testified Plaintiff would need future treatment, including surgery and sustained permanent damage to his foot. Plaintiff testified his life changed forever, ending his career goals of becoming a soccer player.   

Plaintiff sought $285,000 from Defendant. The jury (11-1) found Defendant was not negligent.

Significant Leg Injury, and $32,000,000 Demand

Scott Macdonald and Michele Spencer were successful in obtaining a jury award of $5,300,000 after a $5,000,000 offer and against a $32,000,000 demand to a Los Angeles jury.  The verdict was read on March 21, 2019. 

The plaintiff was a young lady in her early 30s.  She had her left leg pinned in between the rear of her vehicle and another vehicle which collided with hers as she stood on the side of the freeway.  The accident occurred on a rainy day on the 60 freeway.  Plaintiff and her husband had pulled their vehicle to the right shoulder to exchange information for that accident.  Plaintiff exited her vehicle and was standing at the rear of her vehicle on the traffic side when defendants’ truck sideswiped another vehicle causing that that vehicle to veer to the right and pin plaintiff’s leg between it and the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle.  The defendant driver was unaware he had been involved in a collision.  He continued on his way.  The incident was investigated as a hit and run, and the California Highway Patrol determined that no hit and run had occurred.  

Plaintiff testified that she never saw a truck and was unaware that there was an allegation of a hit and run until she was told as much a few weeks after the accident.  She testified that she learned that the CHP had ruled this out, but was upset nonetheless.  The defense admitted liability and causation, and the Court had thrown out punitive damages on a Motion to Strike.  The defense moved to exclude evidence of an alleged hit and run, but the Court ruled that said evidence was relevant to plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress.  This ruling is currently up on appeal. 

Plaintiff’s leg was badly damaged.  Doctors were able to save the leg, but plaintiff underwent seven surgeries and procedures to repair the leg, the arteries and to repair the scarring.  It was undisputed that plaintiff would require a life time of surgeries to prevent problems with circulation.  Plaintiff also had significant scarring and disfigurement for which she was understandably self-conscious.  

Plaintiff waived past medical specials.  Plaintiff presented a Life Care Plan which they claimed was in excess of $4,000,000 dollars.  However, after significant cross-examination at trial, it was admitted that the Life Care Plan was overstated.  Plaintiff asked the jury to award $2,500,000 in future medical specials.  The defense life care plan was between $675,000 and $750,000.  Plaintiff asked for $10,000,000 in past pain and suffering and $20,000,000 in future pain and suffering.   The jury awarded $1,300,000 in future medical care and $2,000,000 for each past and future pain and suffering.

Fresno Victory for Scott Macdonald

Fresno Victory for MacDonald Cody: Jury Awards Plaintiff Just 15% Over Defendant Pre-Trial Offer, More than 75% Below Plaintiff’s Sought Damages

 On February 28, 2019 a Fresno jury awarded plaintiff roughly $1,495,000, just slightly over the pre-trial offer of $1,300,000.  Plaintiff had refused to negotiate below their multi-million dollar demands and asked the jury to award between $6,800,000 to $8,900,000 in damages.  During trial plaintiff dropped their demand to $2,850,000.  

 The accident occurred when defendant’s truck rear-ended the plaintiff’s pick-up.  Plaintiff immediately underwent attorney-referred treatment which resulted in a lumbar surgery.  Thereafter, plaintiff was referred to a Los Angeles doctor who did a multi-level cervical fusion.  During the procedure, the doctor put in a screw that was too long and which caused plaintiff nerve injury.  Plaintiff was forced to undergo a revision surgery to repair that mistake.  Plaintiff claimed that he was no longer able to work. The defense conceded that the lumbar surgery was necessary for long-standing degenerative conditions.  However, the cervical surgery was neither necessary nor related to the accident.  The defense disputed that the plaintiff was unable to work and presented a vocational rehabilitation expert on the subject.   

Plaintiff asked the jury to award $753,965 in medical bills.  The jury awarded $98,000.  Plaintiff asked for $1.4 to $1.5 in future medical specials, and the jury awarded $247,000.  Plaintiff asked for $630,000 in past and future loss of earnings, and the jury gave roughly $400,000.  Plaintiff asked for $4,000,000 to $6,000,000 in past and future pain and suffering.  The jury awarded $500,000 in past pain and suffering and $250,000 in future pain and suffering.