Williams v. Cruz

Defense judgment

Date of judgment: 4th December 2019.

Court and Case No: CP Philadelphia No. 181002871.

Judge: Abbe F. Fletman.

Type of action: Motor vehicle.

Injuries: Back and neck injuries.

Lawyer for the plaintiff: Michael R. Logue, Speer, Greenfield, Richman, Weitz & Taggart.

Expert of the plaintiff: Mark D. Allen, Orthopedic Surgery, Lansdowne.

Defender: Catherine F. Maloney, Amy F. Loperfido and coworkers, Philadelphia.

Defense Expert: Sachin Dheer, Radiology, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

Comment:

On May 9, 2017, plaintiff Ernest Williams, a paint truck driver in his seventies, was driving in the left lane of Seventh Street toward the intersection on Girard Avenue in Philadelphia. His car was involved in a side-wiping collision with a vehicle driven by Luis Cruz. Williams claimed he suffered back and neck injuries.

Williams sued Cruz. The lawsuit alleged that Cruz was negligent in operating his vehicle. Williams claimed Cruz was driving in the right lane and triggered the collision while driving in the left lane.

Defense attorney admitted liability. The process dealt with damage.

A few days after the accident, Williams presented to his family doctor and complained of pain in his neck and lower back. He was referred for further treatment.

Williams eventually claimed he had ruptured his C2-3, C3-4, C4-5, C5-6, and C7-T1 discs. He also claimed that he suffered bulges and protrusions from intervertebral discs in the lumbar region of his spine.

Williams immediately started physical therapy. Treatment consisted of massages and exercises and lasted until October 2017. Williams also used pain medication.

Williams ‘attending orthopedic surgeon admitted that Williams’ MRI scans showed age-related changes, but said that Williams suffered traumatically induced hernias, bulges and protrusions as a result of the accident. The doctor also suggested that Williams may need further treatment.

Williams claimed he continued to suffer from neck and back pain. He claimed that his pain caused him to shorten his hours as a painter because he could not sit for long and had to get out and stretch during his shift. He also claimed that he was unable to do certain household chores such as mowing the lawn. He sought compensation for past and future pain and suffering.

The defense expert on radiology testified that Williams’ imaging studies showed only age-related and degenerative changes with no evidence of traumatic injury.

The jury issued a defense judgment. It turned out that Cruz’s negligence was not a factual cause of Williams’ injury.

This report is based on information provided by the defense attorney. The plaintiffs’ attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

– This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication