VW Jetta was involved in a crash that caused minimal damage to the truck, which was equipped with a trailer hitch port. State Farm was defended. Plaintiff, a 49-year old career union pipefitter, was rear-ended by a 2000 VW Jetta at 20-25 mph on Interstate 680 by his Ram 3500 pickup. The Jetta was destroyed, though the truck sustained minimal damage in the underride collision. The plaintiff’s truck suffered most of the damage to its hitch receiver.Plaintiff did not visit the ER because there was no traffic accident report. The next day, he went to his chiropractor for pain in his back, shoulder, neck and sciatica. Five months after the crash, he had MRIs of both his spine and neck.In the three years prior to trial, the plaintiff had not received chiropractic care. Eight months after the crash, he saw Dr. Santi Rao, a spine orthotist, but he did not see him again until the month before trial. He also did not take his pain management advice.
Case Details
- Case Name Dennis Shay, v. Jakari Hines-Akil
- Court and case number:Contra Costa County Superior Court/ MSC-19-01776
- Date Of Verdict Or Judgment:Friday March 4, 2022
- Date Action Filed:Tuesday August 27, 2019
- Types of Action: Car Accident
- Judge/Arbitrator(s),Hon. John Devine
- Plaintiffs:Dennis Shay
- Defendants:Jakari Hynes – Akil
- Type:Jury Verdict
Verdict and Settlement
- Award or Gross Verdict:$137.759
- Settlement Amount$215,000
- Each Defendant to be awarded:All that is to be accused.
- Contributory/Comparative Negligence: None.
- Economic Damages$69,759
- Non-Economic Damages:$68,000
- Arbitration or Trial Time:8 Days
- Jury Deliberation:6 Hours
- Settlements for Post-Verdict Motions and Trial Motions:Case was settled for $215,000 after-verdict.
Personal Injury Lawyers
- Attorney for the Plaintiff: Anthony Chiosso in San Francisco, Chiosso LawLaw Office of Che Hashim San Francisco Coit Law Group, San Francisco by Albert Thuesen
- Advocate for the Defendant: Jeanette N. Little & Associates, Pleasanton.
Expert Witnesses
- Experts in Medical Care for Plaintiffs:
- Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s).Kenneth Light, M.D., neurosurgery.
- The Medical Expert(s), Defendant:Dimitry Kondrashov, M.D., neurosurgery.
- The Technical Experts of Plaintiff:Philip Allman, economics.
- Technical Expert(s), Defendant:Rene Castaneda, accident reconstruction.
Lawyers’ Closing Arguments
- Plaintiff’s Contentions: Six months after the crash, Plaintiff was unable do pipefitting work. However, he was able to shift to a more strenuous position in HVAC maintenance and was able to continue for two years. After developing carpal tunnel in both his arms, unrelated to the accident, he was unable to work for one year.His medical history includes a year of work absence in 2014 to undergo bilateral tennis elbow surgery, and eight months work absence the year prior to the crash to recover from knee surgery.
- Defendant’s Contentions: This was an underride, minor crash that could not have resulted in serious injury. The plaintiff’s body was already in disrepair before the crash, and his spine was the next part to wear out. Thus, plaintiff had no significant damages.
Personal Injuries and Damages
- Plaintiff claims physical injuriesA herniated disc between C5-6 and S6-7 causes severe neck pain, headaches, and weakness. This compresses the spinal cord, causing nerve root canal stenosis. Disc protrusions in the L4-5 and S1 areas causing mild to severe spinal canal narrowing, as well as subarticular recess stenosis.
- Plaintiff sought past and future income, medical expenses, and significant damages for the adverse effects on his life.
Additional Notes
The best offer made by defendant was a CCP-998 offer for $30,000. Plaintiff made a CCP 998 demand for $100,000 in policy limits. This was approximately one year before the verdict. After the verdict, the defense settled for $215,000.
Some important rulings were made on motions to limine. Because they were admitting liability, the defense wanted to hide the fact that defendant was looking at his phone at the time of the impact. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that the defendant had calculated his speed at the crash site at his depo, interrogatory responses. Plaintiff should have an opportunity to review and question his testimony. The judge agreed. It was relevant to the evaluation of defense accident reconstructionist’s opinions, the judge agreed.
Per defense counsel:
The jury was asked by the plaintiff’s counsel to award $1.7 million. The jury refused to award future medical care or award future wage loss.
