Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM) Herniated Discs Total $ Outcome Case Type Subcategory Facts

Transcription

1 Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM) Herniated Discs Total $ Outcome Case Type Subcategory Facts $ - Defense MVA Rear-end $ 12, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end Plaintiff alleged that she suffered a herniated lumbar disc from a rearend collision caused by a UM. The UM carrier admitted the tortfeasor's negligence, but the defendant maintained that the plaintiff's lumbar condition was not causally related to the accident. The plaintiff was in a subsequent accident approximately 2 months after the subject collision. The plaintiff denied that the 2nd accident aggravated her lumbar condition. An MRI was taken after both accidents to diagnose the condition. Evidence showed plaintiff underwent chiropractic care before and after accident. This case was tried on damages/causation only. The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end with a UM. The defendant stipulated liability, but disputed the nature, extent, and causation of the plaintiff's injuries (herniation and cervical sprain/strain). The accident involved minimal property damage and was light impact. The defendant denied permanent injury and contended that any continuing problems were from a subsequent accident. The plaintiff's award was reduced to $0 after set-offs. $ - Defense MVA Rear-end This case was tried on damages/causation only. The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end with a UM. The defendant stipulated liability. The plaintiff sought medical treatment 3 days after accident with a family physician, and she had orthopedic surgery (discectomy and fusion at C3-5). The defendant introduced photographs of property damage to plaintiff's car which indicated that the accident involved minimal damage and a light impact. The defendant also argued that physician's records show no other injuries and improving symptoms and that the plaintiff traveled to Switzerland approximately 6 months after the accident and was riding on a train when she experienced acute radiculopathy. The defendant's orthopedic surgeon claimed that any pain should have resolved in 6-8 weeks and that pain was probably caused by some event in Switzerland.

2 $ 30, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 66, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ - Defense MVA Rear-end $ 120, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 53, Plaintiff MVA Collision Plaintiff suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing herniated thoracic disk when she was in a collision with a UM. The plaintiff sustained an underlying herniation in a prior rear-end collision. The plaintiff became unable to work from her injuries. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's injuries were attributable to the 1st accident and that any injury sustained as a result of subject incident was not permanent. Plaintiff suffered neuropathy at L5 with a herniated disc resulting in 11% whole body impairment when her vehicle was struck by a UM who left the scene. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing. Plaintiff was struck by a UM and contended that the driver failed to control his vehicle. The defendant admitted negligence, but disputed the cause and extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries including a cervical disc herniation at C4-5 when he was involved in a collision with a UM. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to uphold policy provisions of UM benefits. The defendant denied liability and disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries and contended that the plaintiff failed to exercise due care for his own safety by failing to wear a seatbelt to mitigate injury. Plaintiff suffered a herniation at L5-S1 resulting in other injuries when she was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a collision with a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy and failed to uphold the policy provisions. The defendant denied liability and contended that the plaintiff's host driver failed to exercise due care. $ 7, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end This case was tried on damages only. The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision causing multiple injuries including a cervical disc herniation with surgery. The defendant admitted to the tortfeasor's negligence in causing accident, but contended that the plaintiff's medical conditions were pre-existing and that she did not suffer from permanent injury as a result of the collision. The plaintiff had extensive chiropractic neck treatment and had voiced complaints before the date of the accident concerning her shoulder and wrist.

3 $ 83, CN: Plaintiff 50%; Defendant 50% MVA L Turn $ 13, Plaintiff MVA Multicar- Intersection $ 7, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end Plaintiff was involved in an intersection collision with a UM when the UM negligently made a left turn in front of him from the opposite direction. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff could have avoided impact and was comparatively negligent. The defense also denied that the plaintiff sustained a permanent injury as a result of the accident. The plaintiff claimed that the UM violated his RoW and that he couldn't avoid the accident. The plaintiff's injuries included a traumatic brain injury and 5 herniated cervical discs. This case was tried on damages only. The plaintiff was involved in a multicar intersection collision with a UM after the driver ran a red light. The defendant admitted negligence of the tortfeasor, but argued that the plaintiff's injuries were not causally related to the accident. The plaintiff claimed injuries, including a herniated cervical disc, soft tissue back injury, and TMJ (with 6-week treatment). The plaintiff alleged that the accident forced her to cut back her hours that she worked as anesthesiologist. The defendant claimed that the cervical condition was degenerative and pre-existing. The plaintiff's treating physician claimed that the plaintiff's cervical condition not caused by accident. Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end with a phantom vehicle when she sued the defendant after they denied that she was permanently injured in the accident. The plaintiff's injuries included a cervical disc herniation with double level fusion and plate insertion. The defendant's orthopedic surgeon claimed that the plaintiff only sustained a cervical strain with no permanency. The plaintiff had been in prior accidents with neck injuries and she complained about carpal tunnel prior to accident.

4 $ 2, Plaintiff MVA R Turn $ 61, CN: Plaintiff 75%; Defendant 25% MVA Pedestrian $ 135, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end This case was tried on damages/causation only. The plaintiff was involved in an accident with a UM when the UM made a negligent right turn and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. There was approximately $2,500 total in property damage. The defendant admitted the tortfeasor's negligence and disputed damages/causation. The plaintiff sustained injuries and treated them with a chiropractor several days post-accident who diagnosed her with a large lumbar disc herniation from the accident and recommended surgery and radiating pain. The plaintiff claimed that she was unable to return to her prior employment as a dental assistant and that she sustained diminished earning capacity as a result of the accident. The defendant's orthopedic surgeon claimed that the plaintiff did have a disc herniation, but it was not causally related to the accident and that plaintiff's medical records included prior back pain. Plaintiff was injured when he was struck in the back by the side mirror of the defendant's vehicle. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant operated the vehicle in a negligent manner and failed to keep a proper lookout. The plaintiff further contended that the co-defendant (insurance company) issued a policy of UM insurance. The defendants denied liability. Plaintiff was injured in an accident when her vehicle was rear-ended by a UM at a controlled intersection. The plaintiff's injuries included a herniated disc at L4-5 and aggravation of pre-existing disc damage. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant issued a policy of UM coverage and that it failed to honor the provisions of that policy. The defendant denied liability and contended that the plaintiff's injuries were minor and not related to the accident. Part of the award was the UM's $10,000 policy limit.

5 $ 24, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 652, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 1,984, Plaintiff MVA Failure to Yield $ 493, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end This case was tried on damages/causation only. The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end accident with a UM with approximately $ in property damage. The defendant stipulated to the tortfeasor's negligence in causing the accident, but argued damages/causation. The plaintiff's injuries included a herniated lumbar disc, cervical disc bulges, and a thoracic injury with surgery recommended. The defendant's orthopedic surgeon claimed that the plaintiff exhibited degenerative changes within the normal range for her age, that some chiropractic treatment she received was excessive, and that 3 MRIs were unnecessary. The plaintiff was involved in a subsequent accident approximately 6 months after subject accident and presented to the hospital with cervical, lumbar, and thoracic pain. Judgement reduced to $600,000 for policy limit. The plaintiff claimed permanent impairment due to a disc herniation at C4-5 and disc bulging at C5-7 after he was involved in a collision with a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy and failed to uphold the policy provisions. The defendant admitted sole liability on the part of the tortfeasor but contested extent of the injuries claimed. Judgement reduced to $500,000 for policy limits. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a collision with a UM where the UM violated the plaintiff's RoW. The plaintiff's injuries included a herniation at C5-6 with surgical fusion and adhesive capsulitis of the left shoulder with surgery. The plaintiff filed bad faith claim to recover the full amount of verdict. Plaintiff's vehicle was totaled after a rear-end accident with a UM. The plaintiff suffered injuries including an annular tear at C5-6 and C6-7.

6 $ 17, Plaintiff MVA L Turn $ 138, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 47, Plaintiff MVA Head-On $ 21, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 101, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 89, Plaintiff MVA Collision This case was tried on damages only. The plaintiff was injured in an accident with a UM. The defendant admitted the tortfeasor's negligence. The plaintiff suffered injuries including a cervical disc herniation at C5-6 and a disc bulge at C6-7. The plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon assigned a 7% permanent impairment rating to whole body stemming from the accident. The defendant's orthopedic surgeon claimed plaintiff showed no objective evidence of a permanent injury related to the accident and that MRI findings depicted normal degenerative changes and that the plaintiff, who had denied prior neck or shoulder complaints, had made several during her 8 years of chiropractic treatment prior to the accident. Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end with a UM when he suffered injuries including herniated and bulging discs, nerve impingement in his shoulder, and a torn rotator cuff. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a policy of UM benefits and failed to uphold that policy. The defendant admitted liability, but disputed injury extent. Plaintiff was injured in an accident when a UM lost control of a vehicle and crossed the centerline, hitting her head-on. The plaintiff's injuries included a herniated disc at L5-S1, cervical pain and numbness, and burns to both arms, all resulting in 7% whole body impairment. The defendant contended that the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent impairment and that the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. This case was tried on damages only. The plaintiff was injured when her vehicle was caused to leave the roadway and strike a tree as she took evasive action to avoid colliding with an unknown, nonparty vehicle at a controlled intersection. The plaintiff's injuries included a herniated lumbar disc with surgery. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy and failed to uphold the policy benefits. The defendant admitted liability. Plaintiff was injured in a rear-end with a UM. The defendant was the plaintiff's UM carrier. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at L4-5 when his vehicle was struck by a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to uphold UM policy benefits.

7 $ 1,578, CN: Plaintiff 60%; Defendant 40% MVA Rear-end Plaintiff was injured in a collision with a UM which resulted in herniated discs at C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6 with permanent impairment, pain, weakness, and limited motion to the neck and internal fixation. The plaintiff contended that he held policy of UM coverage with the defendant insurance company. The defendant offered no contentions. $ - Defense MVA Rear-end $ 55, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 34, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 55, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 71, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 67, Plaintiff MVA Intersection $ 79, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end Plaintiff was injured in a rear-end with a UM and claimed that he suffered a herniated disc at C4-5 with anterior cervical discectomy. The plaintiff brought suit for UM benefits. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing. Plaintiff was injured when her vehicle was struck by a UM. The plaintiff's injuries included a herniated disc. The plaintiff contended that the defendant negligently failed to uphold UM benefits. Plaintiff was injured in a rear-end with a UM. The plaintiff suffered a herniation at L5-S1 from the accident. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was liable for UM benefits and the defendant contended that the plaintiff's injuries were related to a pre-existing injury. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc with surgery when his stopped vehicle was rear-ended by a UM at a controlled intersection. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not uphold UM benefits. This case was tried on damages only. The plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at C3-4 and a bulging disc at C4-5 when he was involved in a rear-end collision with a UM. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc and nondisplaced metatarsal fracture when her vehicle was struck at an intersection by a UM. The plaintiff sued the defendant for UM benefits. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc when she was rear-ended by a UM. The plaintiff contended that the UM failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to keep an assured clear distance. The defendant held a policy of UM benefits and admitted liability.

8 $ 40, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 985, Plaintiff MVA Intersection $ - Defense MVA Intersection $ 45, Settlement MVA Rear-end $ 2, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 119, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 185, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 160, Plaintiff MVA Collision Plaintiff was injured when she was rear-ended by a UM. She brought suit against the defendant under UM coverage for injuries which included a herniated disc at C4-5 and a soft tissue neck injury. The defendant contended that the impact was minor and that her disc injury was pre-existing. Policy limit was $200,000. The plaintiff suffered a herniated disc with a discectomy and triple fusion when her vehicle was struck by a stolen vehicle being operated by a UM at a controlled intersection. The plaintiff contended that the UM was negligent for failing to stop for a red light. The plaintiff sued the defendant for UM benefits. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at L5-S1 and building discs at C4-5, C5-6 and carpal tunnel syndrome to the right hand when her vehicle was struck by a UM when the UM failed to stop for a red light at an intersection. The plaintiff sued the defendant for UM benefits. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended by a UM. The plaintiff suffered a herniated disc. The plaintiff contended that her insurance carrier should compensate for damages. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim of permanent injuries. Plaintiff brought suit against her insurance company for UM benefits when she suffered a herniated disc at C5-6 after a UM struck her vehicle from rear. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc when his vehicle was struck from the rear by a UM. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to uphold UM benefits on a UM policy. Plaintiff suffered herniated discs at C3-5 and C4-5 requiring surgery when her vehicle was rear-ended by a UM. The plaintiff contended that she had a policy with the defendant for UM coverage. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by a second accident. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck by a UM. The plaintiff contended that the driver had UM coverage. The defendant admitted liability of the tortfeasor, but contended that the plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing.

9 $ 34, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 15, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 50, Plaintiff MVA Head-On $ 12, Settlement MVA Intersection $ 155, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 28, Plaintiff MVA Intersection $ - Defense MVA Rear-end Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc when her vehicle was rear-ended by a UM. The plaintiff contended that the UM was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to maintain control of the vehicle. The plaintiff sued her insurance company for UM coverage. The defendant denied negligence and contested extent of injures. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck from behind by a UM resulting in a herniated lumbar disc. The plaintiff contended that she had a policy for UM coverage with the defendant. The defendant denied liability on the part of the tortfeasor. Plaintiff suffered 2 herniated cervical discs when his vehicle was struck head-on by a UM. The plaintiff sued the defendant for UM coverage. Plaintiff was injured in an accident when her vehicle was struck by a UM in an intersection. The plaintiff contended that she had UM coverage with the defendant. The defendant admitted liability, but contended that the plaintiff's injury was pre-existing and degenerative. Plaintiff suffered a herniated cervical disc and strains of the cervical and lumbar spine when her vehicle was struck from the rear by a UM who fled the scene. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was liable for damages because she obtained UM coverage before the collision. Plaintiff suffered a herniated cervical disc when her vehicle was struck by a UM at an intersection. The plaintiff claimed a 9-10% whole-body disability rating. The plaintiff contended that the UM failed to stop at a red light and that the defendant was liable. The defendant denied the plaintiff's injuries. The award was reduced for $15,000 PIP set-off. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at L5-S1 and sued the defendant for UM benefits when her vehicle was rear-ended by a UM on a highway after she had suddenly stopped for traffic congestion. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy which provided UM benefits and that it failed to uphold the policy benefits. The plaintiff further contended that the UM operated the vehicle in negligent manner, failed to keep a proper lookout, and failed to maintain an assured clear distance. The defendant denied liability and disputed the plaintiff's injuries.

10 $ 13, Plaintiff MVA Broadside $ 370, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 24, Plaintiff MVA Lane Change $ 47, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ - Defense MVA Collision $ 185, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 204, Plaintiff MVA Broadside Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc and cervical/lumbar strains and brought suit against the defendant for UM benefits when her vehicle was struck broadside by a UM on a public roadway. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy with UM benefits and failed to uphold the policy provisions. The defendant denied liability. Plaintiff suffered injuries including a herniated disc at L4-S1 requiring a laminectomy and discectomy, bilateral meniscus tears with arthroscopic surgery, and bulging cervical discs. The plaintiff contended that he held a policy of UM coverage with the defendant. The defendant admitted liability on the part of the tortfeasor. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc when his vehicle was involved in a collision with a UM who changed lanes improperly. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was liable for damages because he obtained the UM policy before the collision occurred. The defendant admitted liability. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc and a bulging disc when her vehicle was rear-ended by a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant negligently failed to uphold UM benefits. The defendant admitted liability. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at C5-6 when she was involved in a vehicular accident. The plaintiff's condition was aggravated when she was involved in 2 subsequent accidents. The plaintiff contended that she had a policy of UM coverage with the defendant insurance company and that she was entitled to damages. The defendant denied that plaintiff was owed benefits and contended that the plaintiff's injury was pre-existing. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at L4-5 when he was rear-ended by a UM. The plaintiff sued the defendant for UM benefits. The defendant admitted liability and contended that the plaintiff's injury was pre-existing. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc and a bulging disc when a UM struck her vehicle broadside at an intersection. This case is currently under appeal.

11 $ 35, Plaintiff MVA Intersection $ - Defense MVA Head-On $ 14, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 87, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 141, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 12, Settlement MVA Rear-end $ 6, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 6, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end Plaintiff was injured when his vehicle was struck in an intersection resulting in a herniated disc at C3-4 and a 6% whole-body disability rating. The defendant is the plaintiff's insurance carrier and the plaintiff contended that defendant was liable. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc when his vehicle was struck head-on by a UM on a one-way street. The plaintiff held UM coverage with the defendant. The defendant denied liability. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at C5-6 when her vehicle was struck by a UM. The defendant insurance company disputed UM coverage and contended that the plaintiff's injury was unrelated to the incident. Plaintiff was injured by a UM in rear-end accident. He suffered a herniated disc at C5-6. The defendant was the plaintiff's UM carrier. The defendant admitted liability. Plaintiff suffered injuries including a herniated disc which became symptomatic 3 years post-accident when her vehicle was struck by a hit-and-run driver and pushed to the center lane of travel where it was struck by a second vehicle which left the scene of the accident. The plaintiff filed suit for UM benefits from the defendant. The defendant contended that plaintiff had not been injured in the accident. Plaintiff was injured when her vehicle was rear-ended by a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was liable for damages under terms of her UM coverage. The defendant denied liability, contending that the impact occurred at low speed and there were no permanent injuries. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at L4-5 and sued the defendant for UM benefits when her vehicle was rear-ended by a UM at controlled intersection. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a policy of UM benefits and that it failed to uphold the benefits of that policy. The defendant admitted liability, but disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was injured in a rear-end accident by a UM resulting in a herniated disc at C4-5, headaches, and cervical strain. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued policy of UM coverage and failed to uphold the provisions of that policy. The defendant admitted liability.

12 $ - Defense MVA Broadside $ 765, Plaintiff MVA 2 Collisions $ 33, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 1,000, Plaintiff MVA Intersection $ 320, Plaintiff MVA Collision Plaintiff was injured his when vehicle was struck broadside at an intersection by a UM. The plaintiff contended that the tortfeasor failed to stop at a red light and that he was an authorized driver of the vehicle, which was covered by a UM policy issued by the defendant. The defendant admitted liability on the part of the tortfeasor and contended that the plaintiff was comparatively negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc when his vehicle, insured by defendant insurance company, was involved in a collision on 2 different occasions. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was liable for his damages because he obtained a UM policy at the time of the collisions. The defendant admitted liability. Plaintiff suffered injuries including 3 herniated discs and thoracic outlet syndrome when she was rear-ended by a UM and pushed into the rear of a nonparty vehicle. The plaintiff contended that she held a policy of UM coverage with the defendant insurance company and that it failed to honor the provisions of that policy. The defendant denied liability and contended that the plaintiff did not suffer from thoracic outlet syndrome. Plaintiff brought suit against his insurance carrier for UM coverage when he suffered injuries including a herniated disc at C3-4 and a closed head injury resulting in cognitive brain injuries when his vehicle was struck at an intersection. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was liable for UM coverage. The defendant denied liability and disputed the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and contended that the plaintiff's injuries were pre-existing. Plaintiff suffered herniated discs at C5-6, C6-7 and a bulging disc at L5- S1 and sued the defendant when his truck collided with a UM on a public roadway. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued policy of UM coverage and that it failed to uphold policy benefits. The defendant denied liability.

13 $ - Defense MVA Rear-end $ - Defense MVA Head-On $ 160, Plaintiff MVA Broadside Plaintiff was injured in a rear-end collision with a UM. The defendant UM carrier alleged that the tortfeasor's car skidded on a wet road surface after the plaintiff made sudden, unexpected stop. The plaintiff's injuries included herniated cervical and lumbar discs, pain, headaches, tinnitus, and loss of hearing. The plaintiff's treating chiropractor assessed the plaintiff's disability at 13% of whole body. The plaintiff's neurologist claimed a 7% disability of whole body. The tortfeasor claimed that the plaintiff stopped suddenly and his vehicle skidded on a wet road into her vehicle. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's medical records showed her complaint to be preexisting/not related to the accident. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc when his vehicle was struck head-on by a UM. The plaintiff contended that he held a policy of UM coverage with the defendant. The defendant denied liability. Plaintiff was involved in a broadside collision with a UM resulting in a herniated lumbar disc and a 5% permanent impairment to body and a tear of the medial meniscus resulting in a 3% permanent impairment to the body. The plaintiff contended that he held policy of UM coverage with the defendant's insurance company, but the defendant denied liability. $ - Defense MVA Rear-end This case was tried on damages/causation only. The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end collision with a UM and sued her UM carried. The defendant conceded that the tortfeasor was negligent in causing the accident. The plaintiff claimed significant property damage and cervical and lumbar herniated discs. The defendant's orthopedic surgeon claimed that the plaintiff's cervical and lumbar conditions were associated with pre-existing degenerative causes and were not caused by the accident. The defendant's radiologist claimed diagnostic films showed disc protrusions, not herniations. The court granted a $19,700 additur for past meds.

14 $ 45, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ - Defense MVA Rear-end $ 145, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ - Defense MVA Rear-end This case was tried on damages/causation only. The plaintiff sued her UM carried after she was involved in a rear-end accident with a UM. There was no issue regarding tortfeasor's negligence, however, the defendant argued that the impact was minor and did not cause the alleged injuries (herniated lumbar disc with continuing back pain and limitation of movement). The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's lumbar films depicted a disc bulge, not a herniation and that the condition was degenerative and pre-existing. Plaintiff claimed bad faith after he was denied payment by the defendant UM carrier for a UM claim he filed after he was involved in rear-end collision with a UM and suffered a herniated lumbar disc. The plaintiff claimed an inability to return to work. The defendant denied the plaintiff's injuries and contended that his injuries were unrelated to accident. Plaintiff sued the defendant UM carried after her car was rear-ended by a UM. The defendant stipulated to the UM's negligence, but disputed the injuries that the plaintiff claimed to have sustained. The plaintiff's physiatrist testified that the plaintiff sustained a nonsurgical herniation of a disc in the lumbar spine from the accident with continuing pain. The plaintiff testified that she had no lumbar symptoms prior to accident. The defendant's medical experts claimed that the plaintiff's diagnostic films did not depict a lumbar disc herniation and if it did, it was not related to the accident. Plaintiff suffered a herniated lumbar disc and aggravation of prior disc damage and brought suit against defendant after her vehicle was struck from the rear by a UM at controlled intersection. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy and failed to uphold policy benefits. The defendant admitted liability, but contended that the plaintiff's injuries were unrelated to the accident.

15 $ 70, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end This case was tried on damages only. The plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at C5-6 as a result of a collision with a UM. The plaintiff filed suit against her UM carrier. The defendant admitted to the tortfeasor's negligence, but denied that plaintiff sustained permanent injury. The plaintiff's medical experts claimed an 8% permanent disability rating (family physician) and a 9% permanent whole-body impairment (neurosurgeon). The plaintiff continues to experience neck, shoulder pain from the accident. Property damage in this case was approximately $500. The defendant's radiologist claimed that the plaintiff's MRIs were normal with no herniated disc and that the neurologist and orthopedic surgeon claimed no permanent injury. $ 203, Plaintiff MVA Negligent Reversal Negligence was not disputed in this case. The plaintiff was injured in an accident when a truck reversed negligently at a toll booth, striking the front of the plaintiff's car. The defendant insurance carrier claimed that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury as a result of the collision. The plaintiff claimed that the lifted pick-up truck rode "over" her vehicle, causing $7,683 in property damage to the front of her vehicle. The plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical disc herniation by her chiropractor, which was treated conservatively without surgery. The plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon claimed she is in need of continuing treatment and physical therapy. The defendant's medical experts claimed that the plaintiff's neck condition was degenerative and pre-existed the date of the collision. The defense also stressed that the plaintiff returned to employment and had significant gaps in medical treatment (including a 3-year period where she had no treatment whatsoever). $ 128, CN: Plaintiff 25%; Defendant 75% MVA Collision Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc when a UM vehicle collided with his vehicle. The plaintiff contended that the UM failed to yield the RoW and failed to keep a proper look out.

16 $ 14, Plaintiff MVA Broadside $ 209, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 461, Plaintiff MVA Broadside $ 7, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 370, Settlement MVA Rear-end $ - Defense MVA Intersection Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at C5-6 and a thumb strain on the right hand when she was involved in broadside collision with a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a policy of UM insurance under which she was entitled to UM coverage and that it failed to honor the provisions of that policy. The defendant denied liability and disputed the extent of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff suffered herniated discs and a lumbar strain when his vehicle collided with a UM on a public roadway. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy and that it failed to uphold that policy. The defendant denied liability and disputed the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries. A $300,000/$100,000 high/low agreement was stipulated prior to trial. Plaintiff suffered herniated discs at L4-5 and T11-12 when he was involved in a broadside collision with a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a policy of UM insurance and that it failed to honor that policy. The defendant denied liability and disputed the nature of the plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff suffered herniated discs and cervical and lumbar strains when he was involved in a rear-end collision with a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a policy of UM coverage and that it failed to uphold the provisions of that policy. The defendant denied liability and disputed extent of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff suffered herniated discs at C4-5, C5-6, and L4-5 when she was involved in a rear-end collision with a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to issue a policy of UM insurance and failed to uphold policy provisions. The defendant denied liability and disputed the extent of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at L4-5 when her vehicle was struck by a UM at an intersection. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy. The defendant denied liability and contended that the plaintiff negligently failed to wear her seatbelt.

17 $ 145, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 15, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 12, Plaintiff MVA Intersection $ 1,089, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 127, Plaintiff MVA Intersection $ 143, Plaintiff MVA Collision Plaintiff suffered a herniated lumbar disc when she was involved in a rear-end collision with a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a policy of UM coverage and that it failed to honor the provisions of that policy. The defendant denied liability. Plaintiff brought suit against her own insurance carrier under her UM coverage for injuries she received when she was involved in a rearend collision with a UM. The plaintiff suffered 2 herniated lumbar discs. The plaintiff received $10,000 policy limits with UM carrier and sued for underinsured amounts. Plaintiff brought suit against her own insurance carrier for UM coverage for injuries she received in an intersection collision with an unknown motorist. The plaintiff contended that her vehicle was struck by a driver who then fled the scene of the accident. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's disc condition was degenerative and related to her age and not caused by the collision. Plaintiff suffered herniations at C5-6, C6-7, a bulge at C4-5, and a disc protrusion annular tear at L5-S1 requiring surgery. The plaintiff's insurer (defendant) denied his claim for UM benefits. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a policy of UM insurance under which he was entitled to UM benefits and that the defendant failed to honor the provisions of the policy. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff had UM coverage through the policy, but disputed the extent and permanency of his claimed injuries. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at C6-7 and TMJ dysfunction when his vehicle was struck by the UM co-defendant's vehicle at a controlled intersection. The defendant was the plaintiff's UM carrier. The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to stop for a red signal. The defendant admitted liability. Plaintiff brought suit against her insurance company for UM benefits after she suffered a herniated lumbar disc when her vehicle collided with a UM. A $25,000 judgment was rendered for policy limits.

18 $ 29, Plaintiff MVA Collision $ 299, Plaintiff MVA Multicar $ 12, Defense MVA Rear-end $ 12, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 61, Plaintiff MVA Intersection Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc and aggravation of a pre-existing back strain when his vehicle, insured by defendant, was struck in the front by a UM as he reversed his vehicle into a parking lot. The plaintiff contended that his injuries were from the collision. The plaintiff had UM coverage with the defendant. The defendant contended that the cause of the plaintiff's injury was job-related. Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at L4-5 when he was involved in a chain reaction accident. The plaintiff contended that he had coverage with the defendant for UM under a UM policy and that he was entitled to compensation. The defendant denied that tortfeasor was negligent and contended that the plaintiff was negligent. The defendant further contended that a nonparty motorist was also contributorily negligent. Plaintiff suffered a herniated lumbar disc and an aggravated back strain and brought suit against the defendant after the vehicle in which he was a passenger was struck from the rear by a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a policy of UM insurance and that it failed to uphold that policy. The defendant denied liability and contended that the plaintiff's injuries were unrelated to this accident. Female suffered a herniated disc when she was involved in a rear-end accident with a UM. The plaintiff contended that the defendant issued a UM policy where she was entitled to coverage. The defendant denied liability and contended that plaintiff was comparatively negligent and failed to wear a seatbelt. Judgment was reduced to $50,000. The plaintiff was involved in an intersection collision with a UM. The plaintiff sued the defendant for UM coverage. Liability was contested.

19 $ 154, Plaintiff MVA Rear-end $ 17, Plaintiff MVA Multicar Plaintiff suffered a herniated cervical disc and a soft tissue lumbar injury after his vehicle was involved in a rear-end collision with a UM. The UM was in default at the time of trial. The defendant admitted that the UM was negligent in causing the accident but claimed that the plaintiff was not permanently injured. The plaintiff testified that he experienced continuing neck/back pain. The plaintiff's treating chiropractor and orthopedic surgeon testified that the plaintiff sustained a herniated cervical disc and lumbar sprain resulting in a 12-13% permanent impairment of the whole body. Physicians urged plaintiff to reduce strenuous employment. The defendant's orthopedic surgeon testified that the plaintiff's MRI showed a preexisting osteophyte and that the plaintiff was not permanently injured. The defendant introduced a surveillance film of the plaintiff turning his head at a hotel bar to look at a woman behind him. This case was tried on damages/causation only. The plaintiff suffered herniated discs at C5-6, C6-7, L2-3, and L4-5 and radiculopathy into the right arm when his vehicle was struck in the front by one UM and in the back from the other UM. The plaintiff was forced to find a new job after the accident and alleged diminished future earning capacity. The defendant's orthopedic surgeon and radiologist testified that the plaintiff's condition was a pre-existing degenerative condition of the spine and that the plaintiff's right arm pain was from peripheral neuropathy, not the accident.

20 $ - Defense MVA Multicar Plaintiff suffered a herniated disc at L5-S1 when he was involved in a multicar accident with a UM. The defendant was the plaintiff's UM carrier. The defendant obtained the plaintiff's signature on a form provided by the defendant which addressed the selection of UM coverage. The plaintiff alleged that at the time she had signed, she made no checkmarks regarding the extent of UM coverage and that the signature did not represent an informed selection of coverage. The plaintiff contended that the UM coverage was $100,000, but the defendants claimed it was $10,000. The plaintiff further claimed that the signature on the form was induced by fraud, forgery, or trickery. The defendant denied this allegation and claimed that the plaintiff selected the UM coverage limits with which he was provided and that he had waived or was estopped from seeking greater UM coverage. $ 200, CN: Plaintiff 20%; Defendant 80% MVA L Turn Plaintiff was a police officer who contended that a UM negligently made a left turn in front of his vehicle causing a collision. The defendant argued that the tortfeasor's car was caught in the intersection on red light and that plaintiff entered the intersection on a red light and caused the collision. The plaintiff claimed 2 cervical disc herniations which will require future surgery. The plaintiff was restricted to light duty police work. The defense argued that the plaintiff entered the intersection on a red light (contrary to eyewitness statements) and that the future surgery will only cost $9,000-$11,000, not $40,000, and that plaintiff had been promoted to sergeant after the accident. $ 153,398.78