(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident case and its proceedings.)
There Was Ample Evidence that Plaintiff was Seriously Injured in the Accident
Plaintiff presented as a woman who had no problems with her neck prior to being struck from behind by defendant. Both treating physicians, Dr. X. and Dr. Y. testified that the accident caused the injury to plaintiff’s neck, a disc bulge in her C5 region. Dr. Z., a board certified neurologist, testified that plaintiff’s injury was consistent with having been caused by a rear end accident. Not surprisingly, the defense produced an expert, Dr. W., who disputed those findings. Like a murder defendant who tells the jury that he didn’t do it but if he did, it was in self-defense,
Dr. W. opined that plaintiff was not hurt in the accident, but if she was, it was minor. His credibility was quickly undermined, however, when he initially testified that plaintiff’s post-accident ability to swim and snorkel at the time of the IME was evidence that she was not injured and then was later forced to concede that she had really quit swimming (although recommended by her treating doctor) a year earlier prior to the IME because of a severe allergic reaction to plaintiff’s eye from the chlorine in the pool.
The jury heard both plaintiff’s treating physicians and board certified neurologist testify and they heard Dr. W.’s testimony and found plaintiff’s witnesses to be more persuasive. In her motion, defendant presents no reasoned analysis of any deficiencies in the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses.
Simply regurgitating Dr. W.’s testimony, as defendant does in her motion, does not provide a basis for this Court to set aside the jury’s determination that the testimony of plaintiff’s treating and expert witnesses had more convincing force. (See Part 4 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.