|
The Legal Intelligencer June 8, 2001 Regional News DEFENSE WINS WITHOUT USING EXPERTS Jaime Dufresne Defense attorneys John Gerard Devlin and James Corrigan found the adage that less is more to be true, since they gained a defense verdict in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas for their client in a case involving a serious brain injury claim, though no experts testified for the defense. The plaintiff, George Rader, alleged that the injuries he suffered were sustained in a 1999 truck collision involving a garbage truck belonging to the Daley Roberts Corp. Rader showed signs of being disoriented after the accident and was taken to Frankford Hospital, where he was released after tests and examinations. Rader said he was unable to return to full-time employment as an auto-body repairman for a year after the accident because he suffered from, and was treated for, brain damage and learning deficits, including short-term memory loss. He also suffered orthopedic injuries including two herniated discs and thoracic outlet syndrome. The damages requested by the plaintiff included a claim for future wage loss, with Rader contending that permanent injuries would allow him to work only part time. The case rested on a dispute of the nature, extent and cause of the head injuries in what plaintiff attorney Joeseph J. Aversa referred to as a "difficult liability case." Devlin and Corrigan of John Gerard Devlin & Associates argued that Rader's head injuries were not a result of the 1999 car accident, but that they were partially or entirely related to a 1982 can accident in which Rader's face and head struck a windshield. Both attorneys said emergency room records of CAT scan analyses after the 1999 accident indicated the possible existence of previous injuries to Rader's brain. No test results from Rader's 1982 accident were in existence to allow for a comparison. The plaintiff's medical experts asserted that what appeared in the CAT scan to be damage from a past head trauma could be defined by the MRI and X-rays to be something congenital in nature and of no clinical significance. The defense rebutted that assertion without presenting expert testimony. Devlin said the defense's case was argued through cross-examination of the plaintiff's experts and the use of the medical test exhibits, which showed questionable injury. He also indicated that by informing the jury of the amount of money the plaintiff's experts were paid for their depositions, the defense was able to raise enough doubt as to the credibility of the witnesses. In addition, under cross-examination, Rader's vocational expert conceded that Rader's training in real estate would allow him to explore employment opportunities that would not be hindered by his injuries, Devlin said. The defense originally planned to present the testimony of a medical expert as well as of a vocational expert to prove its case. However, according to Devlin, the court precluded the deposition of the medical expert, and he found the testimony of other experts to be unnecessary. Devlin said he believed the doctrine of ratification was relevant in this case, and that to bring in expert witnesses would be to run the risk of ratifying the plaintiff's claim. "This case proves that theory development prevails over factual development and that sometimes, less is more," Devlin said. The trial was overseen by Judge Arthur S. Kafrissen, who had recommended a settlement of $500,000 prior to the trial. The jury of 12 deliberated for four hours before returning the unanimous defense verdict, Devlin said. |
|
|
