Jillian Vukson Drives Home Another Defense Victory on Causation in a Philadelphia County Trial

Jillian successfully proved to a jury that a plaintiff was not injured in a serious intersectional motor vehicle accident resulting in both vehicles being deemed total losses. In the case, the plaintiff contended that as a result of the defendant running a stop sign, she sustained serious injuries including herniated discs of both the cervical and lumbar spine and extensive nerve damage in both the upper and lower extremities. Plaintiff, whose pretrial settlement demand was $125,000 and also presented over $11,000 in medical bills at trial, claimed to have permanent and ongoing injuries on a daily constant basis. Further, she had difficulty sleeping, cleaning, and taking care of her two children. More importantly plaintiff asserted that she was forced to change jobs due to her inability to perform her pre-accident job duties. While plaintiff admitted to an accident with injuries five years prior, she maintained that her condition was severely aggravated which was supported by the plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon who testified that she was in a weakened physical state and was more susceptible to injury due to her prior condition. The plaintiff’s expert testified that the 35 year-old plaintiff’s injuries were permanent and she would require ongoing treatment, including injections and possible surgical intervention in the future. 

In defense of the case, Jillian was able to show inconsistencies in plaintiff’s medical records and questioned the overall veracity of the plaintiff’s claims. She argued to the jury that plaintiff had several gaps in her care and that other than trigger point injections the plaintiff did not undergo any further invasive treatment for the accident despite her claims of permanency. Jillian illustrated for the jury that the plaintiff had a history of similar accidents with identical complaints of pain and similar courses of treatment for each accident. Furthermore, Jillian proved that the plaintiff’s objective studies (i.e. MRIs) were similar to studies taken before the accident and that there was no objective evidence of injury. Defendant’s experts, a neuroradiologist and neurologist, both supported Jillian’s defense by concluding that there was no objective medical evidence of injury and that there were credibility issues regarding the EMG findings. At the close of the trial, the Philadelphia County jury found that plaintiff was not hurt in the accident and found in favor of Jillian’s client.