Warren Holland Convinces Jury That Alleged Permanent Injuries Requiring Surgery Were Not Related to Auto Accident

Warren Holland successfully defended a Philadelphia County lawsuit arising from a moderately severe intersectional car accident where the defendant’s negligence was not in dispute. The plaintiff, who was twenty-nine (29) years old when the accident occurred and had no demonstrable history of prior injury, alleged that he sustained serious and permanent injuries as a result of the accident including two (2) herniated discs, L4 to S1 nerve impingement, lumbosacral radiculopathy and depression. The plaintiff presented to the emergency room after the accident and received several months of physical therapy as well as facet and trigger point injections in his lower back. The plaintiff also treated with a psychoanalyst who concluded that the plaintiff was depressed due to his deteriorated physical condition and inability to work. The plaintiff’s expert, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that the plaintiff’s injuries were a direct result of the accident and that the plaintiff now requires lower back surgery. Plaintiff’s expert also testified that the plaintiff will require injections and physical therapy on an annual basis for the remainder of his life. In addition to claiming substantial pain and suffering, the plaintiff claimed approximately three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000.00) in future medical expenses, ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in past medical expenses and ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in lost wages.

In support of the defense, Mr. Holland presented medical evidence that the plaintiff’s herniations pre-dated the accident. Mr. Holland also impeached the plaintiff’s credibility with Facebook postings which demonstrated that the plaintiff remained physically active (engaging in such activities such as hunting and fishing) during the time period that he was allegedly disabled. Mr. Holland also highlighted the numerous inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s testimony as well as the inaccuracies in the plaintiff’s medical evidence. Ultimately, the jury found in favor of the defense and concluded that the plaintiff’s injuries were not causally related to the accident.