Verdict for the Defense

As a trial recap, the plaintiff, Danais Santana, asserted that she has $17,000 in medical bills as a result of an October 2009 accident. The Plaintiff filed, years ago, and before any of these people were involved, a proposal for settlement for $4,250. Therefore, if this plaintiff received a verdict totaling roughly $5,500, our insured would be exposed to approximately $200,000 in attorneys’ fees.

The Plaintiff presented her own testimony at trial, which went very poorly, as this plaintiff was involved in three prior accidents. The plaintiffs then just simply read the previous testimony of Dr. Robert Martinez, our expert. The plaintiffs then called Dr. Freed, Chiropractor who had seen the plaintiff after this motor vehicle accident. The cross examination of Dr. Freed went  well,  Dr. Freed had to admit that he didn’t have knowledge of the plaintiff’s three previous accidents, or the extent of the injuries that she sustained in these accidents. Despite this, he did not change his opinion.

 To finish the case we played the deposition of Dr. Ravipati, treating physician, whose testimony was confusing, but in any event, established that because of the inaccurate medical history the plaintiff had given him, he could not determine within a reasonable degree of medical probability that there was any injury caused by the October 2009 accident.

 The jury determined there was no causation of any damage as a result of the October 2009 accident, and came back with a defense verdict in approximately 20 minutes.

 In my opinion, any time that we can get a plaintiff or a claimant lying, it is devastating to their case.

Doctors Warn That MRIs Are Often Overused

Here is a link to a New York Times article that provides confirmation that MRIs are overused and not clinically important unless correlated with symptoms.

Click here to view article

Alert: Plaintiffs allowed to “blackboard” medical bills?

Alert:  The First District Court of Appeal in Nationwide Mutual v. Harrell has created yet another conflict in the ongoing saga as to whether or not a Plaintiff is allowed to “blackboard” his or her outstanding medical bills when those same bills have been paid by a collateral source as outlined by Florida Statute Section 768.76.

The Harrell court determined that when a private insurer (not Medicare) makes the payments the Plaintiff under common law should be able to present the full amount of the bills for the juror, not the amounts unpaid by the insurer and subject to a lien.

You can anticipate Plaintiff’s attorneys utilizing this case to build their “outstanding” bills when a private health insurer pays a portion of the bills.