Whiplash Neck Injury Case Seeking Damages for a Rear-End Collision*
Case
Summary:
This is a review of a whiplash neck injury
lawsuit. The Plaintiff in the case contended she suffered whiplash and
spinal injuries after the
Defendant collided with her car. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking
compensation
for what she alleged were serious and possibly permanent
injuries.
The Defendant in the case responded to the lawsuit
by filing a
Motion for Summary Judgment which disputed the severity of the woman's
injuries.
Statement of Facts...
On January 2nd, 2010, Barbara Woo was in her
minivan while stopped
behind a school bus which was loading students.
Driving behind her in his pickup truck was Charles
Jones. Jones was
texting
his sister, and as a result didn’t notice Woo had
stopped behind the bus. As a result, Jones struck Woo’s vehicle
from behind.
None of the students were injured. The impact of
the collision
forced Woo’s head and shoulders to snap back, but the headrest
absorbed much of the shock. There were no other passengers in
Woo’s vehicle. Jones was not injured.
Both parties sustained property damage to their
respective
vehicles.
Jones asked Woo if she was alright. Although he
didn’t
mention he was texting at the time of the collision, he did apologize,
telling her his cell phone had fallen from its cradle, and while
bending down to pick it up he lost sight of her vehicle.
Woo
said she felt “shaky,” but other than that she was
alright. Woo asked Jones if he was injured, and he
demurred, finally
sheepishly saying he was fine. After exchanging insurance information
both parties went about their
separate ways.
Woo was an obstetrics nurse. After leaving the
scene of the accident
she drove straight to work. She worked a 12 hour shift that day. During
the day she began to feel numbness in her shoulders, and pain and
discomfort in her neck.
Woo thought she might have a whiplash neck injury,
so she took the next day off to see an orthopedic
surgeon she knew from
the hospital. He examined her and had cervical spine X-rays taken as
well as an MRI. The X-rays revealed a mild curvature of the spine. The
doctor explained the curvature was a result of a pre-existing condition
called Scoliosis, but it could have been aggravated by the impact of
the collision.
The
MRI also revealed disk herniation. Neither the X-rays nor
MRI
revealed any fractures or subluxation.
The doctor advised Woo she had suffered a whiplash
neck injury. He
advised her to seek physical therapy in an effort to move the herniated
disk back into place, and to relieve some of the pain and
discomfort
she contended still remained in her neck and
shoulder area.
Woo received chiropractic treatment in the form of
weekly electrical
stimulation. She also received daily massages. Her combined treatment
lasted 4 weeks at which time her disk herniation had been fully
resolved.
The Lawsuit & Hearing...
Woo
filed suit against Jones alleging she sustained serious bodily
injuries. Woo claimed her injuries resulted in a serious
and permanent
curvature of her spine. She also claimed her whiplash neck injury
caused her severe pain and discomfort which could incapacitate her
indefinitely.
Jones responded by asking the Court to postpone
the trial so he
could have Woo examined by two separate orthopedic surgeons. The Court
agreed and Woo was ordered to submit to the examinations.
After Jones reviewed the results of the
examinations, he filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment against Woo.
A Motion for Summary Judgment
is a legal document filed by the
Defendant asking the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's case before the
case goes to trial.
In the Motion, the Defendant attempts to convince
the Judge the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is not supported by
“material
facts or law” sufficient to
bring the case to trial. Without material facts or law to support the
Plaintiff's case, there are no issues to be tried. Without any issues,
having a trial would be a waste of the time and expense a trial
requires.
In his Motion, Jones
argued Woo’s injuries were not serious.
To support his position Jones entered into evidence two
separate
Verified Medical Affidavits, each from the orthopedic surgeons who
recently examined Woo.
The first Affidavit stated Woo was found to have a
pre-existing
injury called Scoliosis. The surgeon explained the scoliosis was a
degenerative disease whose onset was probably 3 – 4 years prior
to the date of the collision.
The same examination revealed no apparent disk
herniation and that
if there was any disk herniation, it had been fully resolved. Although
the patient Woo continued to complain of the symptoms of a whiplash
neck injury, he could not find any evidence to support the
patient’s claim.
The second Affidavit confirmed the diagnosis of
Scoliosis, adding
the degenerative disease was hereditary. The Affidavit went on to say
any disk herniation
had been fully resolved and that although the
patient complained of lightheadedness, and numbness in her neck and
shoulder area, such symptoms could not be readily supported by medical
evidence.
In her Response to the Motion Woo argued her
injuries were serious
and that the Scoliosis from which she suffered was aggravated by the
collision. She entered into evidence a Verified Medical Affidavit from
her orthopedic surgeon. In it was a description of her disk herniation
and diagnosis of Scoliosis.
Woo
took the witness stand and testified she still suffered from
serious back and neck pain. She said she was unable to
work longer than
about three hours a day because her neck and shoulder area caused her
acute and lasting pain and discomfort.
Outcome...
After both sides rested and closed the Court took
the matter under
advisement. Three days later each side received a copy of the
Court’s decision. It read in part:
"Although there is clear and
convincing evidence Woo suffered a
whiplash neck injury as a result of the collision caused by
Jones’ negligence,
the Plaintiff failed to prove the injuries
to her spine were caused by the Defendant. Although the Court
recognizes such a collision probably aggravated the
Plaintiff’s Scoliosis, the
Court cannot confirm nor deny the
degree of the injuries which were caused by Jones.
Absent testimony
from the Plaintiff defining the degree and severity, the Court is
unable to rely solely on the Plaintiff’s testimony in
determining the seriousness of the Plaintiff’s
injuries.
Both of the Defendant’s Verified
Medical Affidavits
confirmed the Plaintiff’s disk herniation had fully resolved.
Although the Plaintiff testified she continued to suffer acute pain
and discomfort, she was unable to introduce any recognizable medical
evidence to that effect.
Absent the requisite evidence to
support a finding of serious
bodily injury the Court has no option but to sustain the lower
Court’s decision. Therefore the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted and the Plaintiff’s whiplash neck injury
case is
dismissed with prejudice."
Important
Points...
- When pre-existing injuries or
disease are aggravated as a result of a
vehicular
collision, and the Plaintiff submits the pain and discomfort
from the aggravation as the main or sole basis of a claim of serious
bodily injury, that claim will be suspect and subject to a challenge by
the Defendant.
Absent
defining, credible medical testimony setting apart
the degree and nature of the aggravation of the injuries, a
Plaintiff’s claim of serious bodily injury will seldom be
successful.
- Whiplash injuries, although
previously seen by many as
unsubstantiated and sometimes contrived, are very real injuries.
Whiplash injuries are inclusive, and may take into account injuries to
several regions of the neck, shoulder, and spine areas.
A complaint of
a whiplash neck injury should be taken seriously, and treatment should
be on
a level comparable to other serious bodily injuries.
|
|
*This
case example is for educational purposes only. It is based on actual
events although names have been changed to protect those involved. Any
resemblance to real persons or entities is purely coincidental.
|
Return
from Whiplash Neck Injury to Auto
Accident Claim
Return
from Whiplash Neck Injury to Personal
Injury Settlement Guide
The accuracy of information on this site is not guaranteed. Information on this site is strictly opinion and should not be considered formal legal advice. Under no circumstances should the information on this site be used to make decisions about the proper course of a legal matter. Click below to read our full User Agreement, Disclaimer and Copyright Information.

|