Comments on Bus sideswipes disabled woman's van, jury awards $8,500 - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Drr

Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:03:32 EDT

It sounds like exactly what it is...someone falling victim (or purposely trying to game the system) to an ambulance chasing lawyer.

This guy probably promised her a six figure settlement, and now has to deal with splitting the $8,500 with her.

Comment by JustMe

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:25:55 EDT

I guess I don't understand why the issue of medical expenses is relevant. Presumably the costs of her care would have been recovered from WMATA by her health insurance company, even if that's Medicare disability. What health bills was she actually liable for? Certainly one could claim that WMATA owed some "pain and suffering" costs, considering the nature of the victim, but in this case, $8-$10k sounds reasonable.

Comment by MLD

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:03:27 EDT

Whether this is a private company or a public one shouldn't enter into the calculus of whether she should receive damages.

You either think that she was harmed and is owed something or think that she is not owed anything. "At taxpayer expense" is irrelevant. If a company loses some of its profits then those cannot be taxed and that is also a taxpayer expense.

Comment by DCJoe

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:03:25 EDT

Interesting questions, but I wouldn't read too much into the jury interactions. I was on a jury just under 2 years ago, that had a similar racial makeup to yours (but 12 deliberating jurors, not 8 like yours), with the added layer that the majority of the jurors were not just white, but between the ages of 27-35. It was a complex case, involving multiple counts of attempted murder, carjacking, gun charges, and the added layer of an insanity defense.

Before we began deliberations we were pretty careful about not talking about the case, so as we began deliberations I was worried that some of the things you raised would happen. I was pleasantly surprised that they did not. To a person, every member of the jury had paid close attention, was quite clear in their thinking and reasoning, and really seemed to making an effort to be as fair as possible. Of course life experience and subjectivity came into play at some level, we were all people still. But I think everyone was impressed by the care that the others took to be sure we were doing things the right way.

An attorney I know said that his experience with juries is that they often go one of two ways- either everyone comes together and works really well together (like mine), or people are divided, and retreat to their regular thinking, and it becomes quite contentious. My suspicion is that things other than race and class often determine which way they go- how ready people are to make the time commitment, their general ability to concentrate (watching testimony can be very difficult over long periods of time, it can be very boring and repetitive), and other factors. Not to say race and class issues wouldn't necessarily be the dividing line- I am sure they are at times. But other basic human issues are a huge part of the equation.

By the way, the attorney described the united juries as having a "civic glow" because they were so proud of themselves and their role in the system. We definitely felt that a bit, I think.

Comment by ah

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:49:12 EDT

A couple of reactions:

1) This strikes me as a classic example of a jury acting practically rather than purely rationally. From the facts presented it seems unlikely that whatever injuries she has were caused by the collision with the bus. A rational jury decision would be either no liability, or liability with more significant damages.

2) Ms. Lee has not been lucky in her life. However, a collision with a WMATA bus should not be converted into a winning sympathy lottery ticket borne at taxpayer expense.

Comment by Falls Church

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:13:05 EDT

Here's what I see:

1. Woman feels pain after accident and goes to GWU hospital where they say they can't see anything wrong with her

2. Rather than get a second medical opinion, she goes to a personal injury lawyer

3. The lawyer sends her to the doctor he works with

4. Doctor performs thousands of dollars of treatments that produce no results

Covering thousands of dollars of medical procedures that only the lawyer's doctor deemed necessary and that a very reputable hospital and her treating physician did not deem necessary, seems sufficiently generous.

Actually, I'd be more inclined to award her money for the pain but nothing for medical bills from the lawyer's doctor. That said, are you going to award money to every person who claims pain after an injury even if there is no supporting medical evidence?

Comment by SJE

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:45:34 EDT

While I do not agree that there is 80% abuse, there is clearly something wrong. If you compare the US medical system to ANY other, the US is about twice as expensive and gets worse results. Prescription drugs are only a few percent of medical costs, so most of the $$ is going to medical services. We do not know how much is wasted/abused, because the law makes it illegal to publish usage of medical services by doctor, doctors do not provide upfront estimates of costs, and multiple players have conflicts of interest. Malpractice insurance only makes all of this worse.

Comment by MLD

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:21:05 EDT

@charlie
Really, "abuse" accounts for 80+% of ss/disability spending? Right.

Anyway, WMATA's driver screwed up here so they deserve to pay for additional pain and suffering this woman incurred from the accident. You're right, Ken that due to her condition even this minor accident could cause lots of injury/pain.

That said, the whole process between the lawyer/doctor just leaves a bad taste. The injury lawyer sends her to some doctor of his who orders a bunch of unnecessary x-rays that show what the hospital already found: no there was no further major injury to the patient and any additional pain could be dealt with via her already existing treatment. Having found that the doctor orders up more treatment, of course payable to him.

I certainly feel for this woman and her condition. If her regular doctors felt that extra treatment was necessary WMATA should pay for that. If a lawyer felt that WMATA should pay for damages then they should have sued for that. But working with an outside doctor to stick this woman with an unnecessary bill and then suing so he and his doctor bud get paid is just slimy.

Comment by dcd

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:51:18 EDT

Very interesting piece. The topic of the composition of DC juries is fascinating, and has as much to do with DC's failure to impose any sanctions for failing to comply with a jury summons as the changing demographics in the city. (As an aside, Ken, set your calendar - in January 2015, you'll be getting another jury summons.)

I obviously didn't hear the testimony, but these two sentences in the recap stood out to me:

I could have supported a larger award, as it made little sense to me to find medical costs reasonable but assign no value to the pain for which those medical costs were incurred.

and

She lived a quiet life for the next 20 years, in near-constant pain. She is on daily narcotics to this day to manage her pain, which she places at a 9 on a scale of 1-10.

It seems as if Ms. Lee was in constant, significant pain before the 2010 accident. In addition, apparently there was no physical evidence of additional damage caused by the 2010 accident, and no testimony that she was in additional pain post 2010. If that's the case, there doesn't seem like there was a basis for an award for pain and suffering.

Even if she did testify that she was in additional pain after the accident, the jury is obligated to make a credibility determination (since pain cannot be objectively measured) regarding her testimony. It appears that the other seven jurors may have found any testimony of additional pain not credible, based on the minor nature of the accident, and the Washingotn Hospital Center examination. I'm curious, Ken, if this was discussed, and if so, why you came out differently than the other jury members.

Comment by charlie

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:27:06 EDT

related to my previous comment:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/02/fbi-declares-war-scooter-store/62383/

Comment by Chris

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:23:46 EDT

What is not clear to me is whether this was a hit and run accident, or if the bus stopped to see if Ms. Lee was OK. I know Metro buses have sheared off my father's side mirror at least twice, so reckless driving doesn't come as any great surprise.

Comment by charlie

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:14:19 EDT

You've got to wonder what the settlement offer was from WMATA before trial. 10K?

Also, more on how easy it would be control medical costs with "death panels." 10K in medical bills? Insane.

I had to defend ss/disability programs over Christmas to the medical part of the family -- it only about 150B a year -- but we would be much better off it as a society if it was in the $25b/year range. Pretty easy to do as well since there is lot of abuse by patients and the medical community.

Comment by marie

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:14:14 EDT

I was on a jury in DC about 12 years ago with a very similar case. A UPS delivery man with documented prior back issues claimed his double parked UPS delivery van had been sideswiped by a Metro Bus. Further, he claimed that he had been in the back of the van, sorting packages at the time.

I was one of only two white jurors, judge, defendant bus driver, and plaintiff were all Aftrican-American. During trial it was obvious that plaintiff was not well educated but being led around by his attorney and supposed doctor.

We did not award anything to plaintiff. The jury expressed sympathy for the plaintiff but did not find any credible evidence that the back issues were due to the sideswipe (which left only faint scrapes on the van).

So, I don't think that even 10 years ago the jury would have found differently in your case.

Comment by Alan

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:43:08 EDT

I can understand where the woman is coming from, but it is not clear (and she gave no testimony) how the accident changed her life. Also, did she actually pay her medical bills? One would think that someone else paid (such as her car insurance). It would then be up to her car insurance company to try to recoup the expenses they incurred, not the woman. In the end, I think the jury saw this case correctly: the attorney was trying to milk the situation to get money for himself from the WMATA. If there were something more, the attorney presented little evidence of it. With the evidence presented, this case never should have gone to trial--it should have settled for a reasonable figure, and it only went to trial so the attorney could try to collect a piece of a pain and suffering award (for which again the attorney presented little evidence), and I'm sure from start to finish the victim was egged on by the attorney. I agree with the jury that the attorney should not be reward for this. Its tempting to say this case is all about the victim, but it is not--it is about the victim's attorney, who was clearly not being reasonable giving the evidence produced at trial.

Comment by Beth

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:34:59 EDT

Thanks for sharing this. I was on a jury a few years ago in a first degree felony murder case, and it was a 6-6 black/white jury. The differences in how each group saw evidence and motives was really surprising to me.

Comment by Alan B.

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:31:20 EDT

You are supporting additional compensation? To what end? It was a minor traffic accident, so punitive damages would change nothing. I can definitely sympathize with someone who has chronic pain, but that was not caused by this accident and she was receiving care already. Pain and suffering should be awarded when negligence or malice was the cause. This country is way too litigous.