When our client set out on the freeway with her husband and their one-year-old son, it was supposed to be an ordinary family drive. Instead, another driver struck their family car and everything changed in an instant. Our client was seated in the rear driver side seat, her baby was in the rear passenger side, and her husband was driving. While her husband and child settled their claims before trial, our firm represented the wife as she sought justice for the injuries that disrupted her life.
What followed was one of the most challenging jury selections we have faced.
A Tough Jury Pool and Three Days of Voir Dire
The case was tried in Fullerton, where jury pools often express strong opinions about personal injury claims. Over three days of voir dire and three different panels, potential jurors openly shared their frustrations about people “faking injuries” or filing “frivolous claims.”
Day one brought a juror who complained that someone he lightly tapped sued him for extensive injuries.
Day two brought another who insisted the entire injury claims process was unethical.
Day three brought a woman who said her premiums were still high because someone claimed injuries in what she believed was a minor accident.
Their comments allowed us to remove several jurors for cause, but they also risked poisoning the remaining panel. We knew we needed to present our client’s story clearly and convincingly.
Opening Statements and an Aggressive Defense
In Opening, we explained that our client suffered three compression fractures in her thoracic spine and now lives with the consequences of those injuries. She had been recommended for a future fusion surgery, though she had not made a decision yet.
The Defense presented a very different narrative. They argued:
The CT scan on the day of the crash showed 0 fractures
A second CT scan seven days later also showed 0 fractures
Their medical expert, the Chief of Surgery at Scripps, would testify she had Sheuermann’s Disease, a congenital condition
Her chiropractic care and three PRP injections were “unsupported” by medical literature
And their expert would say her symptoms were exaggerated
Their strategy hinged on convincing the jury this was not a traumatic injury but a preexisting condition.
Proving the Injuries Were Real
We built our case with meticulous evidence.
A crash reconstruction and biomechanical expert testified that the delta V was between 24 and 30, generating an estimated 3,500 pounds of force through our client’s spine.
Our radiology expert showed exactly why the fracture was not visible immediately after the crash. He compared the emergency room CT scan to the CT scan taken seven days later, which revealed the beginning of vertebral collapse. He then explained how an MRI taken four months later showed further collapse of three vertebrae.
We presented her treating orthopedic surgeon by video deposition. He acknowledged that his initial working diagnosis included Sheuermann’s Disease, but after reviewing the imaging over time, he confirmed it was a trauma based compression fracture. He also testified she is a candidate for fusion surgery.
Our client then testified. She explained how the injuries disrupted her work, her ability to care for her toddler, and her relationship with her husband. Before trial, our attorneys visited her home and saw firsthand how her husband had to help her shower and use the bathroom during the first weeks after the crash. She also shared how overwhelming it was trying to manage her household, career, and motherhood while living in pain.
We ended our case with our life care planner, who estimated $290,000 in future medical needs.
The Defense Accusation and a Critical Redirect
During cross examination, the defense attorney accused our life care planner of withholding a supplemental report. He insisted he had never received it and claimed this was a discovery violation. The judge halted proceedings and ordered the document be emailed immediately.
My partner Adam leaned over and asked whether we should tell the judge it was already listed as Exhibit 96. I told him I would address it on redirect.
Standing at the exhibit binders, I asked the life care planner whether evidence should always be disclosed before trial. She agreed. I then confirmed that she did submit the supplemental report and that it had been included as Exhibit 96, meaning the defense already had it. She agreed again.
The defense had attempted to suggest we hid evidence. The truth revealed otherwise.
The Defense Experts: Missteps and Contradictions
The defense called Dr. JJ Abitbol, who claimed there were no fractures and that our client exaggerated her symptoms. But cross examination revealed several problems.
He had confused our client’s treating doctor with a podiatrist during his deposition, forcing him to admit the error in front of the jury. He also denied knowing whether motor vehicle crashes commonly cause compression fractures, despite having a video on his own website stating exactly that. When he challenged us to show him the video, we played it for the jury with no objection.
We also highlighted that he repeatedly claimed to have measured the vertebrae to show no height loss but never produced any documentation.
The defense then called the driver, a young woman who apologized after the crash. Her parents attended every day of trial and sat in the audience as a visible show of support.
Closing Arguments and Competing Narratives
Adam delivered our closing. He walked the jury through the three sets of imaging showing progressive collapse at T5, T6 and T7. He argued the defense leaned on the “Sheuermann’s Disease” theory because they could not explain the radiology. He asked the jury to award $3,000,000 in total damages.
The defense responded with a 1 hour closing focused on liens, expert fees, and accusations of exaggeration. They argued that only lien based providers and paid experts found fractures, while ER physicians found none. Their proposed award was:
$56,000 in past medical expenses
$0 in future medical expenses
$12,500 for pain and suffering
They argued that we were in trial only because our client wanted $3,000,000.
Adam’s rebuttal reminded the jury that if the defense had any real proof to refute the fractures, they would have shown the measurements they kept referencing. Instead, they produced nothing. He pointed out that the defense valued our client’s pain at $7 per day, equating her suffering to the price of a Starbucks latte.
The Verdict
The jury awarded $1,000,000.
Before trial, the defense served a $150,000 offer under section 998.
Our client’s 998 demand was $500,000.
The verdict made clear that the jury believed her. They recognized the truth of her injuries, the credibility of her testimony, and the strength of the evidence.
HHJ Trial Attorneys proudly stood with this young mother through a difficult fight and helped deliver the justice she deserved.
