Articles Posted in Pain And Suffering Claims

Often, when a person gets into an accident, they may not immediately feel the injury. In fact, after a slip and fall, car accident, or other personal injury, it may take a long time for a person to begin feeling the effects of the injury. As such, when an injured person brings a lawsuit alleging that another party caused the accident and the injury, it can be difficult to to prove those allegations, especially if a significant amount of time has passed since the incident. The longer the time between the accident and the onset of related symptoms, the harder this connection be to prove, even for a great lawyer. Moreover, it may even seem like the injured plaintiff is falsely blaming the accident for a completely unrelated pain, and a jury isn’t likely to be sympathetic.

In February of 2008, Suzaune and Helen McKamey (“the McKameys”) were involved in a car accident. The McKameys had stopped their vehicle at a red light in New Orleans, Lousiana, when it was rear ended by Greg Carona, who was driving his friend’s truck. After the accident with Carona, Helen’s attorney referred her to Dr. Norman Ott for her injuries. At the accident scene and at her first two visits to the doctor, Helen denied having any pain radiating from her neck or back. However, at her third visit to Dr. Ott in August of 2008 she began to describe symptoms of pain in those areas. After a visit in September 2008, while Helen’s neck pain had improved, Dr. Ott recommended that Helen get an MRI and that she see an orthopedist. However, she did not do so, and she made no further visits to Dr. Ott.

Helen visited a series of different doctors over the next four years. Some of these doctors believed it was likely that the injuries were either created by, or made worse by the 2008 accident, while other doctors thought the two things were unlikely to be related.  Doctors of both opinions presented evidence at the trial. The fact that Helen was a dancer and entertainer — even appearing on “Dancing with the Stars” on one occasion after the accident — made it difficult for the doctors to determine the cause of Helen’s injuries and pain.

Credibility is an important factor that the court requires in a witness to determine truthfulness in their testimony. If the court does not believe a plaintiff or a defendant he could lose his case. In this case, the plaintiff, lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony about his pre-existing medical condition.

Mr. Jones was injured in New Orleans on December 31, 2009, when Mr. Brevaldo, the defendant, sideswiped his SUV when he tried to merge his recreational vehicle into the far right lane.  Mr. Jones’s SUV sustained damage and Mr. Brevaldo received a citation from the New Orleans police.  Two days after the accident, Mr. Jones went to the emergency room at Ochsner Baptist Hospital and was treated for injuries to his neck, shoulder and upper back. Mr. Jones received a $700 dollar settlement from Mr. Brevaldo’s insurer, American Reliable Insurance Company (“American”), for damage to his side-view mirror. Later, Mr. Jones sued for his personal injuries and damages. On April 3, 2014, a bench trial was held. A bench trial is a non-jury trial where the judge determines the verdict. During the trial, Mr. Jones was the only witness who testified. The district court ruled in favor of Mr. Brevaldo and American and dismissed Mr. Jones’ lawsuit with prejudice.

The appellate court reviewed the Mr. Jones argument to determine whether the district court findings in the case were reasonable. Mr. Jones believed that the district court should have awarded him damages and not relied heavily on his testimony because the evidence submitted proved Mr. Brevaldo was liable. However, when a plaintiff gives testimony in court, they must be consistent because the court relies on their testimony to make a judgment. The court gave great deference to the Mr. John’s testimony because he was the only witness that testified. Other evidence was presented, however, inconsistencies in Mr. Jones’s testimony gave the court a reason to give greater weight to his testimony.

Car accidents happen all the time in Louisiana, but not all accidents cause injuries.  Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, when Joseph Lohenis found himself rear-ended on Highway 1249 by a vehicle owned by Tammy Rousse. Lohenis’ son was driving the car and Lohenis’ wife was in the passenger seat. Lohenis himself was sitting in the back seat of the car, wearing a lap seat belt. The rear-end collision caused Lohenis’ body to move forward and hit the console, and then move backward, where the back of his head and neck hit the truck’s back glass window.

Lohenis filed a lawsuit to recover damages for the aggravation of pre-existing neck and back injuries.  The aggravation of those injuries allegedly occurred due to the car accident.  In a bench trial that was focused solely on the issue of the amount of damages to be awarded, the trial court awarded Lohenis $47, 857.50 in damages.  The defendant appealed.

In the appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court erred in assigning the amount of general damages awarded to the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant claimed that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence third-party medical records as a basis to discredit Lohenis’ neurosurgeon. The second error was that the trial court allegedly erred in finding that Lohenis proved an aggravation of pre-existing injuries beyond two months following the accident. The third error asserted by the defendant was that the trial court used the incorrect mathematical formula to calculate damages awarded to Lohenis. Lasty, the defendant asserted that the trial court was incorrect to find that Lohenis would be entitled to damages for loss of consortium when he did not have a loss of consortium claim in his original petition.