Results and Verdicts

Downtown Jury Finds 50/50 Liability in Rear-end Accident Involving Truck

On May 30, 2025, Scott Macdonald and Michael Moon secured a favorable verdict in Downtown Los Angeles.  Our client was an appliance delivery company.  Plaintiff claimed that they were rear-ended on the freeway without warning.  Defendant driver claimed that plaintiffs swerved into his lane and stopped rapidly, thereby cutting off our client’s stopping distance.  The plaintiffs had a witness that claimed that defendant was tailgating a vehicle, so the witness backed off on her speed and lost sight of the truck.  The witness then came upon the accident and called 911.  The EDR from plaintiffs’ vehicle was harvested.  This allegedly showed a lack of braking and any turning movement by plaintiffs’ vehicle within five seconds of the accident.  We established that defendant’s story had never changed, but plaintiffs had provided versions of the accident which were both inconsistent between stories and inconsistent with the EDR as well.  We argued that defendant’s version of the facts was consistent with the EDR from his perspective.

Plaintiff driver claimed the need for extensive pain management and a three level cervical surgery which was a fusion at C5-6 and disc replacements above and below the fusion.  Plaintiff sought past medical bills, future medical care and pain and suffering.  Plaintiff driver sought between $2,400,000 and $5,400,000 from the jury.

Plaintiff passenger claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury and a thoracic outlet syndrome injury.  She sought past medical bills, future medical care and pain and suffering.  She sought between $790,000 and $1,900,000 from the jury.

The jury found both drivers were 50% at fault.  The jury awarded past medical and future medical bills, and awarded the numbers we suggested for past and future pain and suffering.  The total net verdict for plaintiffs was $659,000.  The parties have agreed to resolve the case post-trial.

Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion in Defamation Case

Amy Akiyama and Megan K. Hawkins secured an appellate victory in a defamation case. On January 30, 2025, the California Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s Order granting Defendant’s anti-SLAPP Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and striking the Plaintiff’s operative complaint without leave to amend.

In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleged: (1) Plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle which came into contact with a bicyclist in Defendant’s neighborhood; (2) Defendant witnessed the incident; (3) Plaintiff left the scene without exchanging information with the bicyclist; and (4) Defendant colluded with his neighbors to make misrepresentations about the incident to responding police officers.

Within a couple of days of being represented by counsel, Defendant brought an ex parte application for leave of the Trial Court to file an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (aka Anti-SLAPP) motion more than 60 days after the filing of the operative complaint. Defendant’s counsel argued that an anti-SLAPP motion had merit and that the purpose of an anti-SLAPP motion, i.e., early dismissal of a meritless lawsuit which threatens free speech, would be furthered by allowing such motion to proceed. The Trial Court agreed and granted leave to file the Anti-SLAPP motion.

Defendant then successfully obtained from the Trial Court an order striking the operative complaint, without leave to amend, pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP motion.  The Trial Court agreed with Defendant that: (1) the litigation arises from protected communications that Defendant allegedly had with police officers; (2) Plaintiff was unable to meet her burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on the merits in light of the litigation/official proceeding privilege codified in Civil Code action 47, which recognizes the importance in providing citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected unlawful activity; and  (3) Plaintiff could not prove that any alleged communication was made with actual malice given that Plaintiff had no evidence that any statement was made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s speculative opinion that Defendant colluded with his neighbors was not evidence.  A judgment of dismissal was entered following the Trial Court’s granting of the anti-SLAPP motion.

Plaintiff pursued an appeal of the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was taken up by the Fourth Appellate District Court. On appeal, Plaintiff contended the Trial Court abused its discretion in allowing the Anti-SLAPP motion to be heard more than 60 days after the filing of the operative complaint and erred in granting the Anti-SLAPP motion.

Defense Counsel prepared a detailed appellate response brief. Defendant argued that evidence was provided to the Trial Court in support of Defendant’s ex parte application for leave to file the anti-SLAPP motion such that its decision to grant leave could not be deemed whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious. Defense Counsel further distinguished all of Plaintiff’s authorities which had been cited by Plaintiff in an attempt to show the Trial Court erred in granting the Anti-SLAPP motion.

Christmas Defense Verdict

On December 24, 2024, Scott Macdonald and Jorge Lopez Herrera secured a defense verdict in Van Nuys, California.  Plaintiff was a tenant of our client.  She claimed that a shower door failed and came off of its tracks.  The door hit plaintiff in the head and caused her head to be pushed back into a wall.  She fell to the floor and lost consciousness.  She was found by a family member that had been staying with her.  Plaintiff claimed that the shower door was dangerous and that defendant had been put on notice that the door was “dangerous” roughly six months before the incident and did not properly repair the door.  Defendant denied that he had ever been put on notice of anything being wrong with the door and disputed that it was dangerous.  It was established that the plaintiff used the shower door for six months and between 150-180 times after the alleged notice of the door being dangerous.  We argued that no one could say why the door came off the track, and that defendant could not have been put on notice of a dangerous condition because no one could identify what the dangerous condition was.

Plaintiff claimed a traumatic brain injury and sought between $5,000,000 to $7,000,000 from the jury.  Defendant conceded a minor concussion by history and sought to establish that any healing occurred immediately or very shortly thereafter.

The Jury deliberated and issued a defense verdict on liability.  Post-Trial motions at the trial Court level were denied.

California Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff’s Petition to Reverse Order Sustaining Demurer in Defendant Homeowner’s Favor in Criminal Home-Invader Case

Scott L. Macdonald and Edye A. Hill secured an appellate victory in a homeowner personal injury case. On November 13, 2024, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition to review the Appellate Court’s order affirming the Trial Court’s Order that sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. Both higher courts approved and affirmed the ruling in Defendant’s favor.

Plaintiff was a social, overnight guest at Defendant’s residential home. During Plaintiff’s stay, a criminal trespassed into the house, killed Defendant’s spouse and child in their beds, and stabbed Plaintiff multiple times. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was liable for the personal injuries that she suffered from the attack by a third-party criminal because Defendant was the last adult to arrive home the night before; Defendant failed to ensure the sliding glass door and windows were locked; and Defendant failed to set the house alarm. The uninvited third-party admitted to law enforcement that he would not have entered the home if the sliding glass door was locked. Defendant has no pre-existing relationship with the third-party trespasser. There were no prior instances of criminal activity or violence at the residential home prior to the subject incident. The operative complaint alleged that Defendant discussed his prior purchase of a gun during dinner with Plaintiff because Defendant was aware of increasing crime rates; that Defendant’s Chinese heritage made the house a target for robbery due to the stereotype of Asians keeping their jewelry and valuables at home; and the rise of Anti-Asian hate in the community, State, and nationwide.

Defense Counsel successfully obtained a demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against the sole cause of action for negligence and persuaded the Trial Court to deny leave to amend to Plaintiff. The Trial Court agreed that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts showing that Defendant homeowner owed a legal duty to prevent the criminal actions of a third-party and in particular the lack of factual allegations that Defendant had any notice or warning about impending criminal activity at the residence was detrimental to Plaintiff’s case. The Trial Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

Plaintiff pursued an appeal of the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was taken up by the Fourth Appellate District Court. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the burden on the homeowner Defendant was zero because the sliding glass door already had a lock; a house alarm was already installed; and Defendant would have incurred no additional financial costs to simply turn the lock on the door and to push the alarm button “on”.

Defense Counsel prepared a detailed appellate response brief. Defendant argued that Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff to protect Plaintiff from the criminal actions of a third-party. Defendant’s appellate brief argued that: heightened foreseeability is required for third-party criminal conduct; that judicial precedent in homeowner cases required actual knowledge of crimes before imposing a duty for to protect against third-party conduct; there were no facts of prior crime at Defendant’s residence alleged in the operative complaint; Plaintiff’s citation to statistical reports, government records, and new articles about crime and Anti-Asian hate do not give rise to a new duty to protect; that casual dinner table talk does not establish actual knowledge of criminal threats; the third-party’s actions were not foreseeable; and that Defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure the doors were locked and the alarm set did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant also argued that public policy factors did not favor imposing a new duty to lock all doors and windows and to always set the house alarm on residential homeowners.

Both Defense Counsel and Plaintiff Counsel presented oral argument before the Appellate three-judge panel. Plaintiff Counsel argued that Defendant has an affirmative duty to use the safety precautions of locks and the house alarm that were already in place. Plaintiff contended that but for Defendant’s failure to engaged the lock and alarm that had “zero burden”, the stabbing by the third-party invader would not have occurred. Defense Counsel argued that the burden on the homeowner Defendant was high because the imposition of a new duty to protect social guests would require all homeowners to serve as a bodyguard and sentry against any violent actions by unknown, surprise attackers. Defense Counsel argued that imposing a new duty to guarantee absolute security by locking all doors and setting alarms was susceptible to a wide range of passive human error such as where the homeowner fell asleep watching television or a guest or child unlocked a window or opened a door without the homeowner’s knowledge.

The Appellate Court agreed with Defendant finding that even under the assumption that there was a special relationship between a homeowner and overnight guest, the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 factors could not be satisfied by Plaintiff. The reviewing judicial panel found that light of the absence of facts to establish prior notice of criminal acts and that there was no causal nexus between the homeowner’s omissions and the injury suffered, the third-party’s criminal acts were not foreseeable. The Appellate Court ruled that Defendant’s failure to check the door and set the alarm were not sufficiently likely to result in the attack on Plaintiff and the death of Defendant’s spouse and child. The Appellate Court affirmed in Defendant’s favor.

Plaintiff then petitioned the California Supreme Court for higher court review of the Appellate Court’s ruling. Plaintiff argued that both the Appellate Court and the Trial Court erred in holding that Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff. Defense Counsel prepared and filed an extensive Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition arguing that the Appellate Court correctly affirmed the demurrer because the criminal acts were not foreseeable; the Defendant homeowner did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries; there is no duty for affirmative preventive measures on homeowners; imposing a duty to ensure that the residence is fortified against crime is not workable; even a low financial burden does not justify the imposition of a new duty on homeowners; the social burden would be onerous; a duty to lock all doors and set all alarms would not likely change future behavior; and the availability of insurance would be adversely affected. Without permitting further briefing or any oral argument, the Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition.

Result: The Trial Court’s Order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend remains in place and the judgment in Defendant’s favor becomes final. Defendant was awarded costs of appeal.

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.

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.

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.

Plaintiff 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.

Macdonald & Cody Obtain Favorable Verdict for a Fraction of Plaintiff’s Workers Compensation Lien

In November 2022, Scott Macdonald and Elizabeth Tingen obtained a favorable award in downtown Los Angeles in a 2-vehicle intersectional collision case. The subject accident occurred on West Third Street in Los Angeles. Defendant was attempting to turn left onto West Third Street from Laurel, and a vehicle in the number 2 0f 2 westbound lanes had stopped to wave him through. Defendant proceeded to make his left turn by pulling in front of the stopped vehicle, stopped again and looked for traffic in the number 1 lane. Not seeing any oncoming traffic, Defendant continued his left turn, however Plaintiff was approaching at 30-40 miles per hour and collided with the front left of Defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff was in the course and scope of his employment as a field service technician at the time. Plaintiff told Defendant at the scene that he was okay, and took pictures of his face and of an abrasion on his left shin. Only when the ambulance arrived did Plaintiff start claiming he needed medical attention. He was taken to the emergency room by ambulance.

Plaintiff claimed a bone bruise in his dominant left hand, torn meniscus in the right knee as well as injuries to his left knee, and severe aggravation of pre-existing PTSD from his years in the military. Plaintiff claimed his PTSD prevented him from being able to drive and therefore, he was unable to work in his pre-accident job as a field service technician.

At trial, Defendant was able to present to the jury evidence of Plaintiff’s 4 prior workers compensation claims arising from prior car accidents and slips and falls, which involved bilateral knee injuries and PTSD. Treating physician testimony revealed Plaintiff had no complaints related to PTSD symptoms associated with driving until 3 months after the accident, right around the time when his physical symptoms had improved. Defendant was also able to present sub rosa footage of Plaintiff driving on the freeway while running errands throughout the day, which Plaintiff claimed at trial he could not do, and of Plaintiff lifting a child up onto his shoulders, despite his claimed wrist pain.

Plaintiff asked the jury to award $150,627 in past medical expenses for physical therapy, right knee surgery, and over 2 years of consistent psychotherapy sessions, for $140,325 for continued psychotherapy, physical therapy and treatment of the left wrist and both knees. Plaintiff asked the jury to award over $1.5 million in past and future loss of earnings. Plaintiff’s total ask of the jury was $5,071,002. Defendant asked the jury to award past medical specials for some physical therapy and psychotherapy as well as 6 months of past earnings.

At a mandatory settlement conference one month prior to trial, the mediators made an unsolicited mediators’ proposal for $750,000. Plaintiff never made a demand under $1 million. Defendant had done a valid 998 for $250,000 and another valid 998 for $350,000 before trial and tried twice during the trial to settle.

After about two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for $39,709 in past meds, $0 for future meds, $39,000 in past loss of earning, and $0 in future loss of earnings. They awarded $25,000 for past pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering, for a total verdict of $103,709. The jury also found Plaintiff 40% at fault for the collision, resulting in $62,225.40 in total damages awarded to Plaintiff.

Macdonald & Cody, LLP Obtain Defense Verdict in San Diego Leg Amputee Case

On November 10, 2022 Joseph Fitzgerald of Macdonald & Cody, LLP was able to obtain a defense verdict in a leg amputee case. Macdonald & Cody’s client was in the course and scope of his employment while delivering a pizza when he made a left turn into a complicated intersection and collided with a motorcyclist. The motorcycle driver required a below the knee amputation after 6 failed surgeries. A local home security camera was able to capture the accident, showing the motorcyclist rolling through a stop sign and into the intersection just before the accident. Further, medical records indicated that plaintiff had consumed alcohol on the night of the accident. Minutes before closing arguments, the defense made a settlement off of $3,000,000. It took the San Diego jury 90 minutes to return a defense verdict.