Eight Years Later the Verdict Is Rendered

It was a difficult case that involved years of appeals, but the case was eventually affirmed.

In 2001, registered nurse, Yuko Yamamoto, was hit by a taxi cab and
knocked to the ground. She sustained serious injuries to her neck.
Oddly enough, when she filed her lawsuit attempting to recover damages
for pain and suffering, a judge said no trial was needed to deal with
liability issues because it was obvious the cab driver caused the
accident and was therefore at fault.

Since the question of liability was not at issue, the only issue
that went to a jury was what amount of damages should she be awarded?
“In this instance, as in a great many cases where neck injuries are
involved, the jury is not able to “see” the damages and this may often
mean a lower settlement because it doesn’t “look” all that bad,
indicated Daren Monroe, Litigation Funding Corporation, Southfield,
Michigan.

Even with medical records that tracked her injuries and the
significant pain that accompanies those injuries, a ride to the
hospital in an ambulance, negative x-rays and her release home within a
few hours, the jury struggled with an award. “There was proof of
follow-up medical care, missed work, extensive chiropractic treatments,
the results of a nerve conduction study, and an MRI that showed
herniations and bulges at C3 through 7. There was pain and weakness, a
50% loss of extension and no surgery slated by the time of the trial,”
outlined Monroe. However, none of this was observable at trial.

Unfortunately, many cases such as this get bounced out of the court
room as judges feel the injuries detailed in the plaintiff’s lawsuit
don’t meet what is referred to as the serious injury threshold required
in car accidents in the state of New York, where this case was filed.
Fortunately, even though the defendant asked to have the case
dismissed, the judge on appeal held there was indeed enough evidence
for a jury to come to the conclusion that the nurse’s injuries did meet
the statutory standard.

“At this trial, the jury awarded $175,000 despite a request for
$500,000 and despite the jury finding she had a significant limitation
of her cervical spine and permanent limitation to the cervical spine.
No money was awarded for future pain and suffering,” Monroe explained.
On appeal the plaintiff offered evidence that she would need continuing
chiropractic care and testing for an unspecified period of time at the
cost of roughly $6,000 a year. The Appeals court affirmed the lower
court’s decision; the original verdict stood, providing nothing for
future pain and suffering.

While this may seem like an unusual conclusion – awarding damages
for future medical expenses but nothing for pain and suffering – the
appellate judge said the jury could have come to the conclusion that
offering money for regular chiropractic adjustments would alleviate the
nurse’s future pain. Interesting statement, but one that does not make
much sense. Future suffering and pain should, absolutely, have been
included in the award.

While all of the back and forth, legal wrangling was going on, Ms.
Yamamoto had to pay her usual bills, not to mention the out-of-pocket
expenses of ongoing chiropractic treatment. Even though she was able to
carry on with some of her duties, do some housework and play with her
child, her range of motion was significantly limited. “One thing she
could have considered was accessing litigation funding. And certainly
that option may still be open to her should she consider appealing once
again,” Monroe added.

“Contacting a lawsuit financial company with a good reputation and
qualifying for funding would make her wait a lot easier. Lawsuit
funding removes the pressure to settle early and inexpensively and
allows the attorney the time he/she needs to get the litigant the
fairest possible result,” said Daren Monroe, Litigation Funding
Corporation, Southfield, Michigan.

To learn more about lawsuit funding and litigation funding, visit Litigationfundingcorp.com.