juror13

Yeah, there was one record of a "fall" at work but the way that she made it sound, she fell on the outside of her foot and didnt even really fall?? Said she left a voicemail for the dr and they copied the vm note down wrong. seemed a bit odd but This trial was full of weird inconsistencies that there were never any solid answers for. As to the workers comp, She really didnt seek any treatment for that fall and the type of labrum tear that showed up on the one mri seemed to be of the type that would not occur with a simple fall or even a hard fall. The mechanism of this type of tear required some type of force pushing on the knee towards the body and the pelvic area being held in place or vice versa, pelvis going forward while knee is held steady. Basically it pushes the ball of your hip back and tears the ligament around the back of the hip. This was the type of action the evidence showed could have occurred in accid and reason i wanted to give her something even though there was an allegation of another fall.

Yeah they asked us if we wanted to stick around and have the attys and possibly the media talk with us be we werent in any mood to be grilled after 5 hrs of deliberations. Hopefully they are reading. I was actually kinda disappointed we didnt get the punitive case. we werent overly sympathetic to either side but i guess our award may have scared the defense into settling?? Was kinda suprised they gave punitive damage in excess of our verdict though. who knows what woulda come out in testimony and ki may not have wanted that public knowledge?

You're welcome. Was my first trial. I am now reading online about different treatments from labral tears to see what medical community thinks about hip replacement. I really dont see that listed as an option anywhere. Most just go to the arthroscopy to debride the wound as last resort. Sometimes they get relief from this and sometimes patients experience other tears down the road. Guess looking back, think that maybe allowing one hip surgery may not have been needed but again the defense did not address this at all and left a lot of questions in our mind. THink could have done a much better job.

Hey, I was actually a juror on the case and since wasnt allowed to read anything bout the case while happening stumbled upon this thread. Basically it was a very difficult case to decide. We didnt feel that either the plaintiff or the defense counsel was very effective. Plaintiffs counsel did not do a great job of tying the coaster event to the current injury and the defense didnt do much to refute any of the allegations by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that she would require hip replacement surgeries in the future based on injuries sustained in the accident(allegedly a torn labrum and ascetabular fracture in hip). The problem with the case was the majority of the medical records showed no injury beyond sprain/strain of the hip and low back. there were several mri's taken which were negative. It was not until 2008 that an mri with contrast was done and a partial tear of the labrum was found. THere was a record of a fall in 2008 that the defense said could have caused the labrum tear but the testimony from plaintiff said really didnt even fall and generally a labrum tear takes something beyond a normal fall. There was also an issue of no medical treatment at all in 2007. why was this? Did she not have the resources or was she truly ok? Basically we compromised and decided to pay for her medical bills from 2006 and 2008 but none in 2009. we then allowed funds for 16 weeks of pain and suffering at 1000/wk and then gave her money(7000) for arthroscopic surgery to clean up labrum and then 33000 for one hip replacement(present value of what would take to cover cost in 15 yrs). Worked out to about 20000 in med bills and 56000ish in non economic damages. We were going to hear evidence of the punitory damages case but after about 25 mins the bailiff came in and advised that that portion had settled after trial. that nbr was confidential.