Experience in Brain Injury
Law to Work for YOU!
Motor Vehicle Negligence
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
David Dwork, Esquire
Plaintiff, age 57, was a passenger in a vehicle operated by his wife, travelling westbound on the Massachusetts Turnpike, which slowed and then came to a complete stop in heavy traffic. The vehicle immediately behind plaintiff’s vehicle, which was owned and operated by the defendant, failed to come to a complete stop and collided with the rear of the plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiff was transported to the local emergency room where it was noted that he had head and neck pain. There was no loss of consciousness nor neurological complaints or symptoms. Physical examination was normal. He was discharged a few hours later with a diagnosis of cervical strain. Plaintiff saw his primary care physician two days later with complaints of neck stiffness. About a week later, plaintiff was taken to the hospital to undergo a left heart catheterization and stent as a result of an unrelated diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Subsequently plaintiff came under the care of a neurologist for cervical pain with right arm paresthesia. An MRI of the neck showed degenerative changes. Weeks after the accident, plaintiff began experiencing “shuddering” episodes and complained of arm paresthesia and headaches. EEG, MRI of the head and EMG were all normal. Plaintiff subsequently saw a neuro-ophthalmologist for vision difficulties. He also started to report balance (vestibular) symptoms. In addition, plaintiff complained of cognitive and mood disorders. As a result of these symptoms and complaints, plaintiff stopped working as a sales person approximately a year after the accident and claimed to be disabled from work.
The defendant denied that any of plaintiff’s symptoms or complaints were causally related to the motor vehicle crash. Defendant’s neurologist asserted that there was no objective evidence of any cognitive, neurological, vestibular or emotional changes that could be attributed to the motor vehicle accident and asserted that plaintiff was fully capable of working.