NEGRON v. SANTIAGO
307970/08
October 5, 2011
Published:
February, 2012
Topic:
Bus negligence - Right-turning bus strikes plaintiff automobile driver stopped near corner, drags car into intersection - Front bumper tears off car - Initial complaints of back, neck, and knee pain - Lumbar and cervical herniations - Eventual arthroscopic knee surgery
Result:
$ 1,700,000 Verdict
Award:
State:
New York
County:
Bronx
Judge:
Julia Rodriguez
Plaintiff Counsel
Todd A. Restivo of Law Offices of Todd A. Restivo, PC in Garden City, NY
Case Summary
This action involved a plaintiff driver, in her late 30s, who contended that as she was in the right lane and near the intersection of the one-way roadway while waiting to turn right onto another one-way roadway, the defendant bus driver, who made a right turn from the lane to the left of her, struck her as the bus made the turn. The plaintiff contended that the defendant continued driving and returned approximately ten minutes later with no passengers on the bus. The plaintiff contended that she sustained lumbar and cervical herniations that were confirmed by MRI and a tear of the medial collateral ligament that ultimately required arthroscopic surgery.
The plaintiff related that as she was stopped and waiting to turn right from the two lane one-way street onto another one way street, she was struck by the bus that was making a right turn from the lane to her left. The plaintiff contended that although it was apparent that the collision had occurred because her car was dragged into the intersection and her front bumper was torn from her automobile, the defendant continued driving. The defendant returned approximately ten minutes later.
The plaintiff pointed out that passengers were on the bus at the time of the collision, but had been discharged before the defendant drove back to the scene. The plaintiff argued that it was likely that the defendant hoped to be able to give an account of the accident without eyewitness statements that would have been given by passengers. The defendant denied being so motivated. The defendant contended that no passengers appeared to be aware of the accident, and that she returned after a pedestrian flagged her down a short distance from the scene.
The plaintiff maintained that she reported immediate neck, back and knee pain. An MRI of the knee was read as probable for a tear of the MCL. The plaintiff underwent an initial several month course of physical therapy. The plaintiff maintained that radiating neck and back pain continued and neck and back herniations were then diagnosed. The plaintiff underwent approximately ten months of physical therapy and chiropractic manipulations. She then advised the diagnosing orthopedist that she was essentially asymptomatic.
The plaintiff related that she resumed her normal activities and that over the course of the ensuing approximate four-month period, the knee pain returned and progressed significantly. The plaintiff underwent arthroscopic knee surgery several months later. The plaintiff contended that she will permanently suffer neck, back and knee pain that is heightened upon walking relatively long distances or spending significant periods of time on her feet.
The defendant maintained that any difficulties were limited to soft tissue neck and back injuries that resolved. The defendant pointed out that after the plaintiff was referred to the orthopedist who diagnosed the herniations, she received therapy for the neck and back only, and that she then advised this physician that she was essentially asymptomatic.
The plaintiff contended that the jury should consider that although this physician initially believed that the altered gait associated with the neck and back complaints caused her knee complaints, it became apparent, once she resumed her normal activities and experienced progressively increasing knee pain and difficulties, that the neck and back therapy did not provide long-term significant improvement to the knee. The plaintiff contended that the jury should consider that she made knee complaints shortly after the accident which were sufficiently severe to prompt an MRI and that the MRI disclosed a probable MCL tear. The plaintiff contended that in view of such evidence, it was clear that the knee injury was caused by the collision, notwithstanding a probable error on the part of the physician who diagnosed the herniations.
The jury found that the defendant was causally negligent and awarded $ 1,700,000, including $ 400,000 for past pain and suffering and $ 1,300,000 for future pain and suffering.
Editor's Note
The plaintiff was able to overcome the evidence that after undergoing a course of conservative treatment for the neck and back that was prescribed by a physician to whom the plaintiff was referred several months after the collision, she reported to this orthopedist that she was essentially asymptomatic. The plaintiff stressed that the patient reported knee pain shortly after the accident, and that an MRI was positive for a probable MCL tear, arguing it was clear that the knee complaints were related to the collision, irrespective of any mistaken diagnoses on the part of the orthopedist. In this regard, the plaintiff argued that the jury should consider that the plaintiff was merely seeking to present the truth to the jury. Additionally, the evidence that the defendant did not initially stop after her bus struck the plaintiff's car and returned approximately ten minutes later after the bus passengers has been discharged created a significant jury response and rendered the jury disinclined to give any benefit of the doubt to the defendant.