Hear’s a transformed version of the article, maintaining all verifiable facts and ensuring 100% uniqueness:
A 66-year-old retired software engineer experienced a concussion and a cervical spine injury following a collision in Chesterfield County. The incident occurred when a driver failed to yield the right-of-way and executed a left turn across the engineer’s path. The plaintiff lost consciousness at the scene.Following the accident, the engineer underwent extensive conservative treatment. Later, a recommendation was made for a C4-5 cervical fusion, wich would represent his second neck surgery. He had previously undergone a C5-6 fusion in 2018 and had fully recovered from that procedure. The plaintiff contended that the crash exacerbated his previously stable condition, leading to the necessity of the new surgery. The total medical expenses amounted to $219,000.
The at-fault driver’s insurance carrier offered its full policy limit of $100,000. However, the underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier initially refused to make any settlement offer, asserting that the damages fell within the primary $100,000 policy limits.
A key element of the case involved a dispute over medical causation. The treating surgeon affirmed that the crash caused symptomatic aggravation at the C4-5 level. In contrast, the UIM carrier‘s medical reviewer attributed the need for surgery solely to pre-existing degenerative changes.
Litigation was initiated. A notable turning point in the case occurred shortly after the plaintiff’s deposition, during which he clearly articulated the differences in his physical condition before and after the crash.
Within days of this deposition, the UIM carrier altered its position and offered $147,000 of its available $150,000 coverage. This brought the total recovery to $247,000, out of a combined policy limit of $250,000.
This case highlights the effectiveness of a well-prepared plaintiff and supportive testimony from a treating physician in overcoming significant causation defenses. it demonstrates the potential for achieving near-policy-limit settlements, even in situations complicated by prior surgical interventions and long-standing degenerative conditions.
Matt long of Bowen Ten Long & Bal in Richmond represented the plaintiff.The case was resolved on October 12, 2024.
