GMR Partner Dana Koos Wins New York SUM Arbitration
GMR Partner Dana Koos successfully defended an SUM Arbitration to which the plaintiff alleged injury to his neck, lower back, knees, and right shoulder after an automobile accident.The plaintiff presented medical records showing he treated for over one (1) year with conservative care, underwent extensive testing, and ultimately underwent a right shoulder surgery.
Dana cross-examined the plaintiff and presented evidence showing the plaintiff was not forthcoming and candid. She elicited testimony showing the plaintiff suffered from pre-existing conditions to his neck, lumbar spine, and both shoulders for which he was disabled for approximately eight years before the subject accident; that he only aggravated his cervical and lumbar spine and right shoulder conditions in the subject accident; and that he sustained subsequent similar injuries within thirteen months after the subject accident.
The arbitrator determined that the medical records and claimant’s testimony were replete with inconsistencies and contradictions and that the plaintiff failed to advise his treating physicians about the full extent of his prior and subsequent injuries. Ultimately, the arbitrator determined the plaintiff was not entitled to any further recovery under his own policy as he had already received adequate compensation.
GMR Partner Dana Koos successfully defended an SUM Arbitration to which the plaintiff alleged injury to his neck, lower back, knees, and right shoulder after an automobile accident. The plaintiff presented medical records showing he treated for over one (1) year with conservative care, underwent extensive testing, and ultimately underwent a right shoulder surgery.
Dana cross-examined the plaintiff and presented evidence showing the plaintiff was not forthcoming and candid. She elicited testimony showing the plaintiff suffered from pre-existing conditions to his neck, lumbar spine, and both shoulders for which he was disabled for approximately eight years before the subject accident; that he only aggravated his cervical and lumbar spine and right shoulder conditions in the subject accident; and that he sustained subsequent similar injuries within thirteen months after the subject accident.
The arbitrator determined that the medical records and claimant’s testimony were replete with inconsistencies and contradictions and that the plaintiff failed to advise his treating physicians about the full extent of his prior and subsequent injuries. Ultimately, the arbitrator determined the plaintiff was not entitled to any further recovery under his own policy as he had already received adequate compensation.