Rideshare Driver Prevails in Major Injury Lawsuit: Defense Deflates $1.9M Medical Cost Projection at Trial

May 2025 • Source: Zarwin Baum

Zarwin Baum’s client, a rideshare driver faced with a bodily injury claim from a passenger arising from a motor vehicle accident and faced with a Future Medical Cost Projection of more than $1,900,000, had a successful outcome at trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in front of Judge John A. Padova, with top-notch representation from Shareholder, Frank Love.

The Plaintiff passenger alleged that she was injured in a motor vehicle accident where the vehicle she was riding in rear ended the vehicle in front of it, allegedly jerking the Plaintiff’s body and causing permanent injury to her neck.  Plaintiff had a course of chiropractic treatment with physical therapy and proceeded on a course of injections and radiofrequency ablations.

Plaintiff was 19 at the time of the accident and 22 at the time of trial.  At trial, Plaintiff’s medical expert and cost projection expert testified that Plaintiff would need a litany of future medical treatment including physical therapy, epidural steroid injections, repeat ablations and surgical intervention.  The Medical Cost Projection report set her life expectancy at an additional 59 years; hence the nearly $2,000,000 claim for future medical costs.

At trial, Frank admitted negligence but not all causation of alleged injuries, so the case basically came down to an assessment of damages trial.  Frank cross-examined the Plaintiff with a photograph of the vehicle from after the accident, which showed very minimal property damage.  Plaintiff also delayed seeking medical attention, until she hired her lawyers.  She had attended one medical visit in the preceding 18 months before trial, when she saw her treating doctor/expert trial witness for a repeat ablation.  Frank also pointed out that the one visit occurred six months after the lawsuit was instituted.  She claimed to lose her job, due to her injuries from the accident but cross examination using her deposition testimony disproved her claim.

Frank also successfully overcame some credibility issues with the defense medical expert, who had some medical malpractice issues 30 plus years ago by pointing out that the expert had been accepted by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, as well as many other courts, many times.  The expert had also never been disciplined in any way by any medical board, had never lost hospital privileges and never been denied medical malpractice insurance.  Frank argued to the jury that Plaintiff did not challenge any of the expert’s medical opinions in the case, including the testimony about why Plaintiff’s expert’s treatment and opinions were not medically supported.

Frank elicited testimony from Plaintiff’s medical expert that he had only seen her on five total occasions and despite Plaintiff’s repeated arguments that her expert was more credible than the defense expert because he was Plaintiff’s “treating doctor”. The “treating doctor” had not even spoken to Plaintiff but once in more than 18 months before his trial testimony and despite learning that she had not had any other treatment but the one visit to his office, he neglected to revise his opinions in any way.  Similarly, Frank elicited testimony from the Medical Cost Projection expert, a registered nurse, that she had no information about Plaintiff’s current medical condition and despite being a nurse, was not concerned with obtaining more information about the Plaintiff, or even speaking with her, before testifying that she required $2,000,000 in future medical costs.

After deliberating for only approximately two hours, the jury fully agreed and awarded the Plaintiff $10,622.67 in total damages.  They awarded Plaintiff a little over $7,000 for future medical costs and $0 for future pain and suffering.  The jury award indicated that the jury compensated Plaintiff for her pain and suffering for this very minor accident and was not at all convinced by Plaintiff’s case and her experts.  Given the admission of liability, the jury verdict basically amounted to a defense verdict.