According to a summary of the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged severe, serious and disabling injuries from the accident including sprains and strains of her neck and back as well as injuries to her disc, shoulders, head, and right knee. She also alleged mental damages such as depression, fear, anxiety, and other emotional injuries. The Plaintiff additionally asserted that she was unable to pursue her usual occupation as a result of her injuries.
In filing a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the
Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s non-economic damages claims were barred
by the Plaintiff’s limited tort selection.
The court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment after indicating
that the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries appeared to be soft tissue in
nature. The court also found that the
Plaintiff failed to show that these injuries resulted in any substantial
interference with any body functions so as to permit a conclusion by the Court
that the injuries were serious.
The court also found that the Plaintiff failed to prevent
objective medical evidence that any pain she experienced following the accident
was a result of the accident. The
court noted that the record contained references to long-standing pre-existing
neck pain.
In granting the Motion for Summary Judgment, the court also
noted that the Plaintiff’s post-accident treatment was sporadic and not
extensive.
Given that the court found that no reasonable minds on a
jury could differ that there was no serious impairment of a body function on
the case presented, summary judgment on the pain and suffering claims was
granted.
Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
Source: "Case Digests" Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 8, 2014).
Source: "Case Digests" Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 8, 2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.