Recently, a verbal threshold case was settled for $180,000. This was quite a difficult case. It involved an accident that happened in May 2003, where a plaintiff was rear-ended and injured in the accident. There was very minimal damage to the cars involved. To complicate things, while still under treatment for the first accident, she was in another rear-end accident in December 2003, involving very minimal damage to the cars. She injured the same areas of her body that she injured in the first accident. She was subject to the verbal threshold in both cases.

Studies of her spine after the first accident showed abnormalities in her neck and back, as did the studies after the second accident. While the injuries in the neck were virtually the same, the back presented a bigger problem. The various studies showed a progression of the abnormalities, that ultimately required surgery. While the surgery helped the plaintiff with some symptoms, she was still having a significant amount of pain, which lead her to have other intrusive procedures done to try to cope with the pain of her permanent injuries.

The case did not settle until the date of trial, almost five years after the first accident. The fact that she had the verbal threshold in both accidents was very crucial. Her treating neurologist opined that the first accident compromised her neck and back, and the second accident caused the already compromised spine to get worse, and turn into a new injury in her back, for which she needed the surgery and other procedures.

If the case was tried before a jury, the defendant in the first accident would have claimed that she did not sustain any permanent injuries in the first accident, and that she was healed by the time of the second accident. The defendant in the second accident would have claimed that the were no permanent injuries from the second accident, and the defense expert would have disagreed with the treating surgeon that the studies and surgery showed a worsened condition.

Because no one has a crystal ball, we will never know whether the plaintiff would have needed the surgery and other procedures had the second accident not happened. She was still under treatment after the first accident when the second accident happened. This would have been tough question for the jury to decide the portions for recovery for which each defendant was responsible.

There were limited policies of insurance available to both defendants. The total recovery available was $200,000. The case settled on the date of trial for $180,000, which consisted of $90,000 from each defendant.