Achievements

Navrotskiy v. CSAA – July, 2009
Bright v. Stonington Insurance – September, 2009
Neidlinger v. CSAA – July, 2009
Ochinero v. CSAA - October 13, 2006 and May 3, 2007
Fischer v. CSAA - April 2007
Tutupoly & Lisapaly v. CSAA - April 2007
Connor v. CSAA - March 2007
Hunderfund v. CSAA - June 2006
Young v. Bitcon - September 2005
LaPray v. Jackson - March 2005
Johnston v. Best Western Gold Country Inn - March 2005
Nunez v. Turner - March 2005
Mohamed v. CSAA - February 2005
Langan v. Olness - November 2004
Bower v. Glenwinkel - November 2004
Bender v. I-101 Express - July 2004
Smith v. Stratton - April 2004
Cao v. Fantilin - January 2004
Tveretinov v. Trone - December 2003
Wong v. Shigetoshi - December 2002

Navrotskiy v. CSAA - July, 2009 | Bright v. Stonington Insurance - September, 2009 | Neidlinger v. CSAAA - July, 2009
By J. Brian Powers

During 2009, Brian tried three first party binding arbitration cases. In each, the primary issue was the necessity of the treatment and the reasonableness of the medical bills.

In Navrotskiy v. CSAA, the claimant incurred bills of $8,048.61 including $5,698.61 from Allmed Medical Center for physician and chiropractic services and $3,350 from Discovery Diagnostics, a Los Angeles radiology facility. The arbitrator awarded total damages of $4,080, including non-economic damages.

In Bright v. Stonington Insurance, the claimant was a logging truck driver whose truck was hit head on by an intoxicated driver who crossed the center line. The claimant’s medical expenses over the course of five years totaled $72,000 and he claimed an income loss of $5,000. The arbitrator awarded $101,572.48 after a deduction of $2,100 for payments from medical payments coverage.

In Neidlinger v. CSAA, the claimant was involved in a minor front end impact accident and the bills for her treatment totaled $10,000, all but $340 of which was for chiropractic treatment. The arbitrator awarded $5,540 after reducing the damages by $2,000 for the amounts paid from medical payments coverage. The arbitrator determined that only $2,540 represented the reasonable cost of necessary treatment.

Ochinero v. CSAA - October 13, 2006 and May 3, 2007
By J. Brian Powers

Ochinero v. CSAA was a complex underinsured motorist claim originally arising from an accident that happened on June 2, 1997. The claimant, who at the time of the accident and after was a 50 year old heavy equipment mechanic at Campbell's Soup, was also involved in subsequent accidents in January 2001 and July 2003. The subsequent accidents resulted in third party litigation and the UIM claim was joined with the third party litigation until the defendants involved in the subsequent accidents settled with the claimant for a total of $890,000.00.

Brian took the position that the June 1997 accident was minor and presented expert testimony from Mechanical Engineer Dan Layton that the closing speed in the accident was 4.2 miles per hour and that the resulting forces experienced by the claimant were equivalent to forces experienced by individuals in the course of common daily activities. Brian also argued that the subsequent accidents were much more severe and that it was the third accident that actually led to surgery in October 2003 involving a two level anterior cervical discectomy, plating, and fusion.

The claimant's Neurosurgeon was deposed three times. At the time of his first deposition in October 2002, he testified that the claimant's neck pain, shoulder pain, intermittent radiculopathy, and numbness/tingling were the result of the 1997 accident and he had recommended the surgery, but by that time the claimant had not elected surgery. Brian argued at the arbitration hearing that at the time of that deposition the treating Neurosurgeon did not have an accurate history. When deposed a second time in October 2004, the treating Neurosurgeon acknowledged his prior testimony, but testified that when Ochinero returned to see him during 2003 he said that his symptoms were markedly increased after the third accident. He specifically testified, "The only thing I can tell you for sure is after the last accident he was much worse, because now he was on big-time pain medicine and he was miserable, and now he was ready to do surgery. That is the bottom line." When deposed a third time just before the arbitrati on hearing, he testified that the subject accident was one of the factors that led the claimant to elect surgery.

An IME was performed by Michael Fry, M.D. He testified at the arbitration hearing, through the transcript of his deposition, that cervical MRI films done four months before the 1997 accident demonstrated a degenerative condition that eventually led to the need for surgery and that the 1997 accident did not play a role in the claimant's need for surgery. He also testified that right shoulder complaints made by the claimant shortly before the 1997 accident were actually a symptom of the cervical degenerative disease.

At the hearing, records were placed in evidence to show that in July 1998 the claimant told his Physical Therapist that he was 90-95% well overall and that he then sought no further medical care until November 1998 when he saw his primary care physician complaining of neck pain after driving 1,000 miles while on vacation.

Medical expenses associated with the first accident totaled $7,527.00 most of which was for physical therapy. The underlying carrier paid its $15,000.00 policy limit and CSAA paid $5,000.00 from the medical payments coverage. Brian argued that the 1997 accident was not a substantial factor in the ongoing objective complaints, the cervical spine surgery or a subsequent shoulder surgery at which a rotator cuff tear was found. The claimant submitted medical bills from June 1997 through August 2005 totaling $151,211.00. The claimant's retained CPA calculated a past loss of income and fringe benefits in the amount of $353,569.00 and the value of future lost income and fringe benefits of $612,263.00. The claimant's attorney argued the case had a value of 2.5 million dollars of which CSAA was responsible for 85%, or $625,000.00 in damages. The demand was the residual policy limit of $85,000.00. The offer was $15,000.00. The arbitrator issued a gross award of $32,527.00 for a net award of $12,527.00.

Fischer v. CSAA - April 2007
By R. James Miller

Fischer v. CSAA was an uninsured motorist claim involving a rollover incident that occurred on August 29, 2004. The incident occurred as one of the claimants was driving her parent's Chevy Blazer with two passengers from her home in Roseville to Waterworld on the Cal Expo grounds. The claimant was traveling southbound on Business 80 in the slow lane when she passed the Marconi on-ramp at about 55-60mph. At that time, one of the passengers noticed a white van coming onto the freeway at the Marconi on-ramp. The claimant driver looked to her right and swerved left to avoid the impact. The vehicle rolled over several times and came to rest in the #3 lane.

The claimant driver stated that she did not know whether her vehicle came in contact with the adverse vehicle. One passenger testified that she saw the vehicles come into contact and felt an abrupt change in the direction of the vehicle she was in as a result of that contact. Another passenger claimed that she heard contact between the two vehicles.

The California Highway Patrol investigated the incident and noted that there was no paint transfer on the claimant's vehicle. Also, an independent witness saw the incident and testified that the vehicles came very close to each other but no contact was made.

As a result of the incident the claimants sustained over $35,000.00 in medical expenses. They did not assert a wage loss.

The offer before the arbitration hearing was $0. The demand was for the policy limits of $50,000.00. The arbitrator found that there was no contact between the vehicles and therefore denied the claim.

Tutupoly & Lisapaly v. CSAA - April 2007
By J. Brian Powers

Tutupoly & Lisapaly v. CSAA was an uninsured motorist claim based on an accident that happened on January 11, 2003, on westbound 47th Avenue on the Highway 99 overcrossing. The uninsured motorist merged into the side of the claimant's car after exiting from westbound Highway 99 onto 47th Avenue. Both claimants were treated by Tan M. Vuong, D.C., who charged $3,070.00 for his treatment of Tutupoly and $3,140.00 for his treatment of Lisapaly. Susan E. Bromley, D.C., testified based on her review of the records that the chiropractic treatment was largely unnecessary. Both sides presented expert testimony from mechanical engineers concerning the amount of force generated by the impact. The arbitrator awarded total damages of $4,820.00 to Tutupoly and $5,128.00 to Lisapaly.

Connor v. CSAA - March 2007
By J. Brian Powers

Connor v. CSAA was an underinsured motorist claim that arose from a motor vehicle accident that happened on May 23, 2002, when the underinsured motorist made a left turn in front of the claimant, who was proceeding straight through the intersection of E and 29th streets in downtown Sacramento. The claimant, a disabled U.S. Post Office vehicle mechanic, was 65 years old on the day of the accident. He claimed that as a result of the accident he sustained neck pain, right thumb pain and a significant right ankle injury. The discovery showed that the claimant had a long history of neck pain and right heel and ankle problems and suffered an ankle fracture in December 2002 when a car ran over his foot. The claimant admitted these problems, but claimed that before the subject accident he was able to walk 2-3 miles a day and that the foot and ankle injuries in the two accidents were different. His testimony in this regard was impeached with evidence tending to show that before the accident the claimant w as not able to walk more than a few blocks at a time and that his significant pain occurred after the December accident.

Paul Kisilewicz, DPM, the claimant's treating Podiatrist, testified at the arbitration hearing that the claimant's right ankle and foot condition was significantly aggravated by the subject accident, but on cross examination admitted that the medical records within two weeks after the subject accident did not indicate any significant right foot or ankle injuries.

The medical bills totaled $10,198.00. The underlying insurer paid $25,000.00 to settle the third party claim and CSAA had paid $3,956.00 from medical payments coverage.

The last demand before the arbitration hearing was $75,000.00. No offer was ever made and it was asserted that the claimant had been fully compensated by the underlying settlement and the payments for medical payments coverage. The arbitrator ruled that the claimant had been fully compensated and the award was $0.

Hunderfund v. CSAA - June 2006
By J. Brian Powers

Hunderfund v. CSAA was an uninsured motorist arbitration hearing that involved a motor vehicle accident that happened on February 12, 2003, on Mount Aukum Road in Amador County. The uninsured motorist crossed the center line and struck the claimant's pickup head on. The claimant said that he "felt like I just got slammed into the steering wheel." On the date of the accident, the claimant was 46 years old and worked in a family business.

The claimant's injuries included headaches and pain in his neck, chest, shoulders, right wrist, and left foot. He was seen at his primary care physician's office and by two other physicians and also had two separate courses of physical therapy. His medical bills totaled $6,034.00 and he claimed $7,188.07 for prescription medications, although Brian argued that most of the use of medications was unrelated to the accident and that Hanif reduced the amount of the bills. Brian contended that the claimant had fully recovered from his injuries within a few months after the accident and presented supporting testimony by deposition from one of the treating physicians and in person by Douglas Haselwood, M.D., who performed an independent medical examination. The claimant alleged that his symptoms were significantly reduced while he was on Celebrex, but that his symptoms reappeared when he stopped using it because of the Celebrex heart attack scare. CSAA had paid $5,000.00 for medical payments coverage. He did not claim loss of income.

The offer before the arbitration hearing was $20,000.00. A demand was never made. The arbitrator awarded $20,012.16.

Young v. Bitcon – September 2005
By R. James Miller

Young v. Bitcon was tried to jury verdict in Placer County. The plaintiff claimed that Jim's client was negligent for failing to observe him while he was riding his bicycle in the bike lane. Jim contended that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle against traffic at an excessive speed and therefore the accident was completely the plaintiff's fault. As a result of the impact between Jim's client's car and the plaintiff, the plaintiff sustained fractured ribs, a wrist fracture, and low back pain. After a three day trial the jury deliberated for thirty minutes and returned a defense verdict in Jim's client's favor. The jury found the plaintiff 100% at fault for the accident. The insurance carrier for Jim's client was CSAA. CSAA had offered the plaintiff $5,001 in a 998 three months before the trial. The plaintiff did not accept the 998 offer within the statutory period. The offer was never made again and the only offer at the time of trial was a wavier of costs. Since Jim's client was the prevailing party at the trial, the insurer was awarded over $3,000 in costs.

LaPray v. Jackson - March 2005
By J. Brian Powers

LaPray v. Jackson was tried to jury verdict in Placer County. Brian’s client, Melinda Jackson, dropped off plaintiff Keri LaPray’s older daughter at the LaPray home. The older daughter had been playing with one of the defendant’s children. Jackson parked in the plaintiff’s driveway which declined toward the street. Jackson turned the ignition to the off position and placed the transmission in park, but left the keys in the ignition and did not engage the parking brake. Jackson and LaPray ended up standing on the passenger side of Jackson’s Dodge Durango. The front passenger door was open and both women were standing inside the door as was LaPray’s 18-month-old daughter Katelyn. Jackson’s two-year-old son, Jacob, was in the Durango. He climbed into the front seat and both women saw him “pretending to drive” the vehicle. Jacob apparently moved the ignition into an accessory position and then pulled the shift lever out of park. The Durango rolled backwards and the open door knocked down Ka telyn. LaPray testified that she saw the front tire roll over her daughter’s entire body, “from her toes to her head.”

Ambulance personnel arrived at the scene. The Roseville fire captain testified that when he arrived at the scene everything was relatively calm and it did not appear to him that the vehicle had rolled over Katelyn’s entire body. It turned out that Katelyn’s injuries were a minor torus fracture of the right tibia, laceration of her lip and various bruises and abrasions.

Keri LaPray alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress. She testified that as a result of witnessing the accident, she suffered from nightmares, insomnia, flashbacks, panic attacks, withdrawal from her family in social situations, and a significant decrease in the general quality of her life.

After a 5½ day trial, the jury was out for 3½ hours and returned a verdict in favor of Brian’s clie nt. The insurer for Brian’s client was CSAA.

Johnston v. Best Western Gold Country Inn - March 2005
By R. James Miller

Johnston v. Best Western Gold Country Inn was tried to jury verdict in Nevada County. The plaintiff claimed that she tripped and fell on a juniper bush that was obstructing a sidewalk. As a result of the trip-and-fall, the plaintiff dislocated her elbow. She incurred $6,500 in medical expenses due to injuries sustained in the incident. Plaintiff’s husband had a loss of consortium claim.

Jim argued that the juniper shrub was an open and obvious hazard. He got the plaintiff to admit during cross-examination that she had crossed the area where the incident occurred on at least six prior occasions without incident. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was carrying a blanket and a wooden rocking chair. Additionally, the plaintiff was unsteady on her feet due to a prior incident. Jim argued that the reason that the plaintiff fell was because of her unstable gait.

The jury returned a defense verdict in Jim’s client’s favor. Since Jim had served the plaintiff’s attorney with a 998 when he answered the complaint, Jim’s principal was entitled to its ordinary and expert costs. The third-party administrator for Jim’s client was Precision Risk Management.

Nunez v. Turner - March 2005
By R. James Miller

Nunez v. Turner went to a jury trial in Sacramento County Superior Court. Jim represented the driver of a pickup truck. Plaintiff claimed that Jim’s client sideswiped plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result, plaintiff contended that she sustained injuries to her shoulder, back and neck. She also claimed that she was pregnant at the time of the incident and that the trauma caused her to miscarry. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that she had an increase in migraine headaches as a result of the incident. The plaintiff asserted over $10,000 in medical expenses. The plaintiff also claimed that she was unable to work as a hair stylist due to injuries sustained in the accident. She asserted a $70,000 wage loss.

Jim and his principal believed that the plaintiff’s injuries were minimal and therefore served the plaintiff’s attorney with a 998 for $7,751.00 in October of 2003. The plaintiff did not accept the offer. Thereafter, Jim retained experts to refute the plaintiff’s claims of injuries. The experts showed that the plaintiff sustained, at worst, an aggravation of a preexisting condition which should have resolved within 2-3 months of the incident. Since Jim and his principal were confident that a jury would believe Jim’s experts, all offers were withdrawn.

At the first day of trial, all of Jim’s motions in limine were granted including barring plaintiff from asserting a wage loss since she withdrew her expert on that issue. Just prior to beginning jury selection, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Jim and his principal did not waive costs. Jim filed a cost bill, which included his expert’s fees, totaling over $7,000. The insurance carrier for Jim’s client was CSAA.

Mohamed v. CSAA - February 2005
By J. Brian Powers

Mohamed v. CSAA went to binding underinsured motorist arbitration. In Mohamed, the claimant was a real estate appraiser who claimed that he sustained hip, right knee and lower back injuries arising from a November 1997 motor vehicle accident. The claimant contended that he struck his right knee during the accident, resulting in a medial meniscus tear and damage to the lateral femoral condyle of the knee. He had undergone two right knee arthroscopic procedures and the medical testimony provided that he would probably require total knee replacement in the future. He claimed past medical expenses of $27,310.82, future medical expenses of $91,547.00, past income loss of $20,727.00 and future income loss of $90,488.50.

Brian’s medical experts, forensic anatomist Lawrence Elson, and orthopedist Gordon Lundy, testified that had the meniscus tear and lateral femoral condyle injuries occurred at the time of the accident, Mohamed would have had immediate significant pain and objective signs of injury. Dr. Lundy testified that it was possible that he sustained a lumbar sprain or strain as a result of the accident. The medical records showed that a few hours after the accident, Mohamed saw his primary care physician who reported no reference to any right knee complaints or findings and only noted lower back and hip complaints. Six days after the accident, Mohamed began physical therapy and at that time complained of right knee pain and swelling.

The accident reconstruction experts for both sides agreed that the underinsured motorist’s speed at impact was 15 miles per hour.

The underlying insurer paid its policy limits of $100,000 to Mohamed. The arbitrator awarded total damages of $10,000. Due to the underlying third-party settlement, the net award was zero.

Langan v. Olness – November 2004
By R. James Miller

Langan v. Olness was tried to jury verdict in Sacramento County. The plaintiff was involved in three motor vehicle accidents within one year. Jim represented the adverse driver in the second accident. Plaintiff settled with the adverse driver in the first accident and proceeded to trial against Jim’s client and the adverse driver in the third accident. As a result of all three accidents, plaintiff claimed she was permanently impaired and alleged future economic losses of over $365,000.

In the accident involving Jim’s client, plaintiff claimed that Jim’s client struck a van, which in turn struck plaintiff’s car. During the trial, the driver of the van, who was not named by plaintiff’s attorney as a defendant, testified he came to a complete stop behind plaintiff’s vehicle, was struck from behind, and moved forward impacting plaintiff’s car. However, Jim impeached the van driver by using his deposition where the van driver testified that he did not remember if he had come to a stop before the impact from behind.

During Jim’s cross-examination of the plaintiff, she offered testimony that conflicted with her story. The plaintiff admitted she saw the van approaching prior to the impact. She also admitted the van was traveling between 10 and 30 miles per hour and that she saw it approaching for about 5 seconds. During that time the van never stopped. Ultimately, Jim got the plaintiff to testify that the van did not appear to be impacted from behind and pushed forward into her vehicle. Furthermore, during Jim’s cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that the van driver’s statement that he came to a complete stop before impact with inconsistent with her recollection of the accident.

After a six-day trial, the jury found Jim’s client was not negligent. The verdict against the driver in the third accident was more than double the plaintiff’s 998 demand to him. Jim’s verdict was below his 998 offer so his client was entitled to recover his costs. The insurance carrier for Jim’s client was CSAA.

Bower v. Glenwinkel - November 2004
By Ralph W. Kasarda

Bower v. Glenwinkel was tried in Placer County. The case arose from a three car accident in which the rear-ended plaintiff was the driver of the lead car. The plaintiff only sued the driver of the car behind her, the second car. That driver filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against the driver of the third car, believing that a rear end collision between the third and second cars contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. Ralph represented the driver of the third car.

In the underlying action, the plaintiff settled her complaint against the defendant - the second driver. However the defendant continued his cross-complaint against Ralph’s client seeking partial indemnity for a portion of the settlement. The parties agreed to a court trial.

At the trial, the defendant’s car appraiser testified that defendant’s car was totaled in the accident, because repairing the vehicle would have cost over $5,000. During Ralph’s cross-examination, the appraiser admitted that the overwhelming majority of damage to defendant’s car was to the front end. In fact, he admitted that over 59 hours of labor would have been required to repair the front end of the car, while only about 3 hours would have been required to repair the back. He also admitted that he did not recall the specific damage to the rear, only that there was damage to the rear bumper.

The plaintiff testified that she felt three impacts, one from the rear, one from the front when her car was pushed into the vehicle ahead of her, and another impact from the rear. She said the third impact was the lightest. On cross-examination, the plaintiff agreed with Ralph that she was stopped at the time of the accident, and that she watched in her rear view mirror as the defendant hit her from behind. She also admitted that she did not see Ralph’s client behind the defendant during the initial impact. She further admitted under cross-examination that she did not lose wages from her injuries, and that the only medical specials she knew about were her $15.00 co-payments and the cost for a neck collar.

The defendant then called his insurance adjuster to testify as to the plaintiff’s medical specials. The court agreed with Ralph that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay, and the defendant’s evidence was not allowed. The defendant then rested.

On the second day of trial Ralph made a motion for non-suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. The judge agreed that the defendant failed to establish that the impact involving Ralph’s client and the defendant, contributed in any way to plaintiff’s injuries. Ralph’s motion for non-suit was granted, and Ralph’s client was entitled to recover his costs. The insurance carrier for Ralph’s client was CSAA.

Bender v. I-101 Express – July 2004
By R. James Miller

In Bender v. I-101 Express Jim represented a truck driver and his employer in an action filed by an eight-year-old through his guardian ad litem that went to jury verdict in Placer County. The plaintiff contended that Jim’s client violated several city ordinances by parking a box-van truck illegally on a residential street, in a bike lane, too close to an intersection. The plaintiff argued that the parking of the truck obstructed his view of oncoming traffic as well as a driver’s view of the plaintiff when the plaintiff attempted to cross the street in a cross walk.

As a result of the plaintiff entering the intersection, he was struck by a car and sustained fractures of his left leg and arm. He was hospitalized for four days. Two months after the accident, the plaintiff had a surgery to remove a rush rod from his left arm. He incurred over $85,000 in medical expenses.

Jim’s motions in limine prohibiting negligence per se jury instructions for his clients alleged violations of city ordinances were granted. Additionally, Jim’s motion in limine to exclude any reference to his client’s alleged violation of an ordinance prohibiting the parking of a commercial vehicle on a residential street was also granted. Jim convinced the judge that the ordinance was unenforceable because there were no signs informing truck drivers of the prohibition of parking on the street. Jim also had a motion in limine granted so that the only medical expenses the plaintiff could seek against his client were the amount the plaintiff’s health insurer paid to the health care providers which was $57,000.00.

Nine witnesses, including three expert witnesses, testified at the trial. After a four-day trial, the jurors deliberated for three hours over two days and returned a verdict in favor of Jim’s client. The jury found that Jim’s client was not negligent.

Jim served the plaintiff with a 998 offer of $20,000 when he answered the complaint so his clients were entitled to recover their costs. The insurance carrier for Jim’s clients was Harco National Insurance Company.

Smith v. Stratton – April 2004
By R. James Miller

In Smith v. Stratton, a motion for summary judgement was granted in favor of Jim’s clients. The plaintiffs appealed the granting of the motion. The plaintiffs were the mother and father of a young man who died when he was the passenger in a vehicle that collided with a legally parked tow truck. Jim represented the tow truck operator and his employer.

The tow truck was parked in front of the tow truck operator’s home on a busy street in Sacramento. The truck was parked within two feet of the number two lane of the street in front of the tow truck operator’s home. The speed limit on the street was 45 miles per hour. The accident happened at approximately 5:00 a.m. At that time, the driver of the vehicle in which the decedent was a passenger either fell asleep or was dozing off when the impact occurred.

Jim argued that his client was entitled to judgement as a matter of law because his client owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that the tow truck was dangerous as designed and that special care needed to be taken by Jim’s clients. The plaintiffs relied on cases that held that it was foreseeable for a driver to fall asleep while driving and therefore an individual parking a tow truck owed a duty to assure that the parking of the truck did not contribute to an accident. Jim distinguished plaintiffs’ cases showing the Court of Appeal that in the cases cited by the plaintiffs the defendants owed the plaintiffs a special duty. The special duty was inferred because the defendants had caused plaintiffs to be placed in harms way. In the instant matter, Jim’s clients did nothing to bring the decedent to the scene of the accident.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the granting of the motion for summary judgment in an unpublished decision. The plaintiffs filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court of California. The petition was denied. The third party administrator for Jim’s client was Claims Management Services.

Cao v. Fantilin – January 2004
By J. Brian Powers

Cao v. Fantulin was tried in San Joaquin County. Brian’s client, a Stockton resident, crossed over the center line on Highway 70 north of Marysville and sideswiped the plaintiffs' utility truck. The plaintiffs were husband and wife who were in the wholesale fruit business and were returning to Stockton with a load of 11,000 pounds of persimmons. There was significant damage to the defendant's car, but little damage to the plaintiffs' truck. Plaintiffs only treatment was provided by a Stockton chiropractor with charges of $6,400 for Mr. Cao and $6,200 for Mrs. Cao. At the settlement conference, the defense offers were $3,500 to each plaintiff. When the case did not settle at the settlement conference the offers were withdrawn. Brian argued that the chiropractic charges were unreasonable and that the plaintiffs had failed to produce evidence to show that they were injured as a result of the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the defense resulting in a cost judgment of $5,739.99.

Tveretinov v. Trone – December 2003
By J. Brian Powers

Brian tried Tveretinov v. Trone in Sacramento County. Brian’s client rear-ended the plaintiff who said he was stopped at the end of a line of cars waiting for a red light at the intersection ahead. Brian’s client testified that the plaintiff made a sudden stop for no reason and that the line of cars was at least 100 yards in front of where the plaintiff stopped. The plaintiff's only treatment was from a chiropractor and the bills were $2,800. The defense made no offer to settle the case and Brian argued that the accident was the plaintiff's fault and he was not injured. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded the full amount of the chiropractic bills, but only $2,600 in general damages and also found that the plaintiff was 11% negligent.

Wong v. Shigetoshi – December 2002
By J. Brian Powers

Brian tried Wong v. Shigetoshi in Sacramento County. The plaintiff, a 92 year old woman, claimed that she was walking on a city sidewalk when Brian’s client hit her and ran over her while he backed his pickup into the street from an auto repair facility. Brian’s offer at the settlement conference was $22,500 versus a demand of $50,000. On the first day of trial, the plaintiff's attorney said the case could not settle for less than $100,000. Brian was able to convince the jury that based on the type of injuries sustained by the plaintiff she fell down before his client started backing out and was therefore not visible to him before and as he backed up. The jury returned a defense verdict.