Acerca de

JULIAN LIU v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY; 2021 WA JURY VERDICTS & SETT. LEXIS 21

2:18-CV-01862-BJR

March 22, 2021

Published: May-June, 2021
Topic: PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT; BREACH OF CONTRACT; BAD FAITH; NEGLIGENCE; CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT & INSURANCE FAIR CONDUCT ACT VIOLATIONS; FRACTURED ANKLE; BRAIN INJURY; COGNITIVE LOSS.

Result: PLAINTIFF VERDICT for $1,500,000. (The jury deliberated for less than two hours and returned the verdict that included $50,000 in past medical expenses, $450,000 in future medical expenses, $58,000 in past wage loss, $192,000 in past non-economic damages and $ 750,000 in future non-economic damages. Plff's extra-contractual claims are pending.).
Specials: Med. $49,656 (past), $750,000 (futures).
Award: $1,500,000

Injury: Fractured ankle; minimally displaced tibia, fibula and malleolus. Mild traumatic brain injury; cognitive changes. Plff was taken by ambulance to Harborview Medical Center where he was diagnosed with a minimally displaced tibia, fibula, and malleolus fracture. He was discharged and given a boot to wear. He then treated with a chiropractor a month later for his neck and back. After a few months of chiropractic care, he stopped treatment for about a year. Six months after the accident, he asked his doctors to release him back to work. As he went back to work and normal life, he began to notice cognitive changes like forgetfulness, attention deficits, irritability and subtle personality changes. His wife implored him to see a medical doctor, and he returned to his chiropractor who referred him to a neurologist. The neurologist sent him for neuropsychological testing that confirmed post-concussive changes in his attention, memory, abstract reasoning, and inhibition. Because Plff's conventional CT scan and brain MRI were essentially normal, he underwent several neuroimaging studies at Hoag Hospital in Newport, California, and UC Irvine Brain Imaging Center at his attorney's request. The imaging studies demonstrated subtle abnormalities in the frontal, parietal, and temporal regions of his brain, including decreased fractional anisotropy shown on a Diffuse Tensor Imaging (DTI) study and metabolic decreases on a PET scan. During litigation and at trial, the Def. vigorously contested Plff's brain injury, arguing that since Plff never lost consciousness, had normal brain MRI and CT scans, did not report cognitive symptoms to any providers until 21 months later, and was an older gentleman, he could not have sustained a traumatic brain injury. At trial, the Def. also argued that Plff's injuries were minor and there was no mention of any head injury at the scene or in the ER, all of which were true. The Def. also pointed out that Plff chose to voluntarily go back to work after six months and told his doctors he made great improvement. The Def.'s expert opined that the neuropsychological exam was flawed because the data on which testing was completed is normed to an American population. The Def. further argued that the DTI study, PET scan, and NeuroQuant studies were unreliable because they did not meet the Appropriateness Criteria for assessment of head trauma by the American College of Radiology. Dr. Wray and Dr. Blue testified that Plff's medical condition should have resolved in three months at the most. Plff presented medical and lay witness testimony about changes in his personality, mood, and behavior, as well as testimony from his doctors about his desire to get better and his coworkers to show that he was an honest, hard worker, even though his supervisor changed jobs before this accident and could not see what the post-accident changes were. Plff also presented extensive testimony of his background to show how functional he was before this collision versus how he was after the collision.

Practice Area: Insurance Law; Torts
State: Washington
Court: U.S. District Court, Western District

Judge: TRIAL JUDGE: Hon. Barbara Rothstein

Plaintiff Counsel
Edward Le, Michael Kittleson & Jean Jorgensen, Law Office of Edward K. Le (Renton).
Defendant Counsel
Heather Jensen & Sarah Macklin of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith (Seattle).

Case Summary

11/18/15 - Plff, Chinese American male age 73, currently retired. Plff was taking out his trash and putting his garbage containers along the curb in front of his house. Plff's neighbor was operating her vehicle just outside of Plff's driveway, and failed to see him as she changed gears from reverse to drive, striking him at a low speed. Both parties agreed that the impact occurred at a low-speed. Plff eventually settled his third-party case against the at-fault driver for $50,000 policy limits; and brought an action against Def. State Farm for his full $250,000 UIM policy limits. However, Def. State Farm made a pre-suit offer of $12,900 to resolve his UIM case, an amount that Plff and his counsel believed vastly undervalued his case. The pre-suit offer was eventually increased to $35,000. Plff brought suit in King County Superior Court, which was subsequently removed to Federal Court by the Def. Plff's contractual claims were tried to the jury.

Plaintiff Expert(s)
Martha Glisky Ph.D. (Neuropsychologist) Bellevue.
Mark Fishel MD (Neurologist) Bellevue
Robert Cooper MD (Physiatrist) Tacoma
Varun Laohaprasit MD (Neurosurgeon) Bellevue
Joseph Wu MD (Psychiatrist/Neuroimaging expert) Irvine CA.

Defendant Expert(s)
James Blue MD (Neurosurgeon)
Dean Shibata MD (Neuroradiologist), both Seattle
Linda Wray MD (Neurologist) Burien.

Demand: $250,000 (UIM policy limits).
Offer: $12,900, then $35,000 (pre-suit offers).
Insurance: State Farm
Length of Trial: 6-day Zoom trial